List Google business listings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only, 0 credits.' It adds valuable operational context: the results are scoped to the brand, multiple businesses may share one Google login, and the agent must ask the user rather than guess the right listing.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, output fields, usage rule, user-selection requirement, fallback procedure, safety note, and prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and reads naturally without redundancy.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns, when to call it, what to do when multiple listings are shared, what to do when none are shared, and the connector prerequisite. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The parameter count is 0 and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output fields and selection behavior instead.

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 names a specific verb and resource: listing Google Business Profile listings shared with the current brand, including exact output fields. It clearly distinguishes this from other list_* tools by emphasizing the brand-scoping, which is essential for avoiding posting to the wrong storefront.

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?

It explicitly says to call this before posting when more than one listing is shared and to let the user pick. It also provides the exact fallback path when nothing is shared: use list_connector_accounts('google_business') and set_connector_accounts, and never guess a listing.

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