gmb_info_googlelocations_search

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

The description contradicts the annotations. It describes a 'search' operation, which implies read-only behavior, yet readOnlyHint is false (not read-only). No additional behavioral context is provided beyond this contradiction, such as whether the operation has side effects or requires special permissions.

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 sentence that front-loads the endpoint and gives a concise purpose. It is efficient and easy to parse, but it lacks additional structural elements such as examples or caveats that would make it more informative.

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?

Although the schema is rich and covers parameters well, the description is minimal given the tool's complexity (nested Location object, multiple queried params, no output schema). It does not explain what constitutes a 'match' or the trade-off between query and location inputs. The contradiction with annotations further undermines completeness.

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 schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it references 'the specified request' without elaborating on query versus location parameters, pageSize limits, or the absence of pagination (which the schema already documents).

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's purpose: it searches for locations matching a request, and the endpoint is included (POST v1/googleLocations:search). It is specific about the action (search) and resource (googleLocations), but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling search/list tools such as gmb_info_locations_list or gmb_info_chains_search.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, exclusions, or scenarios where a different search tool might be more appropriate. The only hint is the endpoint and generic 'search all possible locations', leaving the agent to infer usage.

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