gmb_info_attributes_list

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, which covers the safety profile. The description adds useful context that the returned attributes are those 'would be available' for a given category and country, but it does not disclose behavior like pagination or how parent/showAll modes affect results. This aligns with the calibrated baseline for annotation-rich descriptions.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the HTTP method and endpoint, and directly states the function. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 description adequately covers the core use case (category + country) but omits mention of alternative lookup modes like parent or showAll, which are significant features documented in the schema. Since the schema is comprehensive and annotations are strong, the description is mostly complete but could be enriched by noting these alternative modes.

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%, so all 11 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full burden.

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 tool returns a list of attributes for a location given a primary category and country, using a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('v1/attributes'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like gmb_info_locations_getattributes by emphasizing categorical/country-based availability rather than location-specific retrieval.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema. Given similar sibling tools exist, explicit differentiation would be valuable.

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