Read the Q&A on a Google Business listing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description explicitly says 'Read-only, 0 credits', reinforcing the safety profile. It adds valuable behavioral context: the interpretation of unanswered questions ('read as "this business does not respond"'), the fact that the reply names those unanswered, and the prerequisites. This goes beyond the annotations and explains subtle semantics that affect how an agent should interpret results.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose immediately. It packs in essential details (data content, interpretation of unanswered questions, read-only/credit cost, prerequisites) without unnecessary fluff. It earns each sentence and is appropriately sized.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only list with no output schema and three optional parameters. The description covers the data semantics and prerequisites but omits guidance on pagination (pageToken) and location targeting (locationId). For a tool with no output schema, the description should compensate for missing return details, but it does not explain the overall shape of the response or how the parameters interact. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is only 33% (only 'limit' has a description), and the description does not explain 'pageToken' or 'locationId' at all. The description does mention 'the brand’s Google Business Profile listing' but never ties that to the locationId parameter, leaving an agent to infer how to target a specific listing. With low schema coverage and no guidance in the description, parameter semantics are a significant gap.

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') and resource ('questions on a Google Business Profile listing'), and details what is returned (questions, answers, upvotes). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_google_business_reviews or list_google_business_posts by focusing on Q&A. The mention of 'the reply names the ones with no answer at all' also conveys the tool's scope precisely.

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 clear context for what the tool does and notes prerequisites ('Needs Google Business Profile connected and the project approved'). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools (e.g., answer_google_business_question) or provide exclusion criteria. The usage guidance is implied but not articulated as a comparison.

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