gmb_info_accounts_locations_create

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

Annotations already declare this as a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the context that the location is 'owned by the logged in user,' which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as validation behavior, response format, or side effects beyond the schema's validateOnly parameter. Given the annotations cover the core safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the HTTP method and path, and immediately states the purpose. There is no filler or redundancy. It earns its place by providing the endpoint and the ownership detail without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Despite the rich schema and annotations, the description is very short and fails to provide context beyond the basic action. There is no output schema, so the description should at least mention what is returned (the created Location), which it does not. It also lacks guidance on validation behavior (though validateOnly is in the schema) and any error scenarios. For a complex tool with 8 parameters and nested objects, the description is insufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for every parameter including 'parent', 'body', and 'validateOnly'. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage. The extensive schema carries the weight here.

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 clear action: 'Creates a new Location' with a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly notes ownership by the logged-in user, distinguishing it from other create tools for admins, action links, or media. The resource is unambiguous in both the tool name and description.

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 implies usage (create a location) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It does not mention prerequisites, required permissions, or scenarios where another tool might be more appropriate. This is implied usage, matching a score of 3.

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