gmb_actions_locations_placeactionlinks_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds only the HTTP method 'GET' and endpoint, not extra behavioral details like pagination or filtering behavior. This is adequate but adds little beyond the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence. It states the HTTP verb and resource first, then the operation. There is no wasted words or redundant qualification.

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?

For a simple read-only list operation with full schema coverage and robust annotations, the description is essentially complete. It does not mention pagination or filtering explicitly, but those are documented in the schema. The lack of an output schema is offset by the verb 'Lists' implying a list response.

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?

All 8 parameters have descriptive schemas (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions 'the specified location' which maps to the required 'parent' parameter, but adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the action ('Lists'), the resource ('place action links'), and the scope ('for the specified location'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get/delete/patch on the same resource, and from the create action.

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 provides clear context that this tool lists all place action links for a given location, as opposed to retrieving a single link (get) or mutating them. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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