List Google business listings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint:false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value with the auth prerequisite (Google Business Profile connected via Settings > Connectors) and the zero-credit cost. It stops short of describing output shape or pagination, but for a 0-arg list call in a rich-annotation tool this is solid.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then usage, then the failure path -- a sensible ordering, and the fallback instructions earn their space. The rhetoric about a wrong post being 'a public mistake Hermoso will not make for them' is stylistic padding that could be cut without losing instruction.

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?

With 0 parameters, no output schema and safety already covered by annotations, the definition supplies everything an agent needs: scope, when to call, what to do when empty, the auth prerequisite, and the credit cost. No meaningful gap remains for a tool of this complexity.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The field list (id, title, address, website, Maps link) adds mild value about what is returned even though it is not a parameter concern.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the Google Business Profile listings SHARED WITH THIS PROFILE') and enumerates the returned fields (id, title, address, website, Maps link). It also scopes the tool against everything else in the family by declaring these are the only listings that can be posted to or read, so an agent can distinguish it from post_to_google_business without opening a 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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Call this before posting whenever more than one is shared and let the USER pick.' It also covers the empty case with concrete alternatives -- list_connector_accounts("google_business") then set_connector_accounts -- and a hard exclusion ('never name or guess a listing').

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