List Google business listings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the read-only nature is confirmed, and it discloses that the operation costs 0 credits, that a Google Business Profile connection is required, and that only shared listings are visible. It also explains the multi-business scenario (agencies) which is a behavioral caveat not inferable from annotations alone.

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 well-organized: it opens with the core function and output, then explains when to call it with a concrete fallback, then safety considerations, then credit cost and connection requirement. Every sentence adds value, and the length is justified by the richness of guidance. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description explicitly lists the return fields (id, title, address, website, Maps link). It covers connection prerequisites, credit cost, usage triggers, fallback steps, and the critical safety behavior of letting the user pick. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4 (no params to document). The description doesn't need to add parameter info; it already covers the relevant context. No gap exists.

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 states a specific verb (list), a precise resource (Google Business Profile listings shared with this brand), and enumerates the returned fields (id, title, address, website, Maps link). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_business_location (single) and list_google_business_posts (posts) by emphasizing the filtering scope.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: call before posting when more than one listing is shared, and let the user pick. It also gives a fallback procedure for no-shared-listings (list_connector_accounts then set_connector_accounts) and explicitly warns against guessing a listing. This is exemplary usage instruction with clear alternatives and exclusions.

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