Google Business Profile performance

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it notes the tool is read-only and costs 0 credits (already in annotations), but also discloses the discontinued per-post insights caveat, advising not to promise that data, and mentions the connection requirement. No contradiction with annotations; it enriches the safety profile.

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 moderately long but well-structured, with the core purpose front-loaded. The note about per-post insights is important and placed clearly. Each sentence adds value—no redundancy or filler. Slightly verbose but acceptable.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description should explain the return shape, but it does not mention how results are returned (e.g., a summary object or list). It covers the metric list, read-only nature, and caveats, but fails to describe the response format, leaving a gap for an agent unsure what the tool actually returns.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (days, metrics, locationId) in detail, including the metric enum list and behavior for unknown names. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 what the tool does with a specific verb ('performed') and resource ('Google Business Profile listing'), listing the exact metrics covered (impressions, calls, clicks, etc.). It also explicitly notes the listing-level scope, distinguishing it from per-post analytics and other platform insight tools like meta_page_insights or instagram_insights.

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?

Provides strong context on when to use this tool ('For a local business this is the real-world demand signal... the number an ad campaign should be judged against') and includes a clear prerequisite ('Needs Google Business Profile connected'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to recognize its fit.

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