Google Business Profile account for a listing

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds substantial extra context: it specifies the exact data fields returned, clarifies the scope (exactly one account, parent of a listing), states it costs 0 credits, and lists the prerequisite ('Needs Google Business Profile connected'). This goes beyond the annotations to give a complete behavioral picture.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than the absolute minimum, but every sentence serves a purpose: core purpose, data fields, usage context, scope limitation, and prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the core function and then narrows to exclusions. The only slight inefficiency is the list of account types could be seen as verbose, but it is useful. Overall it is well-structured and not redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool with one optional parameter, the description is fully complete. It explains what data is returned (fields are listed), when to use it, what it does not do, and the prerequisite (Google Business Profile connected). Even without an output schema, the agent knows exactly what to expect. No missing information that would prevent correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is only one optional parameter (locationId) and the input schema already provides a full description: 'which listing, from list_business_locations — only needed when more than one is shared with this brand.' Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific verb and resource: 'Read the Google Business Profile ACCOUNT that owns one of the brand’s listings' and enumerates exactly what data it returns (name, type, role, verification, permission). It also differentiates from the sibling list_connector_accounts by explicitly stating it reads exactly ONE account and never lists other accounts, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it to answer “can we actually edit this listing?” and “whose account is it on?” before offering an edit that Google would refuse anyway.' It also names the alternative for the other case: 'that roster belongs to the account picker (list_connector_accounts),' and explains when it is not appropriate (when you need to list all accounts). This fully routes the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.