gmb_info_locations_getattributes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context about the data source (merchant-set) and its potential staleness regarding Google/user-generated updates. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the specific semantics of the returned data, though the openWorldHint already hinted at external changes.

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 concise sentences, with the main action front-loaded and the caveat in one clarifying sentence. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool retrieves, the caveat about data freshness, and implicitly differentiates from sibling tools. The absence of return-structure details is acceptable given the simplicity and lack of an output schema.

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 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description does not add any parameter-level details beyond what is already in the schema. Per the rubric, the baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description provides no additional semantic value.

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 function: 'Retrieves attributes for a location as last set by the merchant.' It specifies the verb (GET), resource (attributes for a location), and scope (merchant-set, not live Google data). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gmb_info_locations_attributes_getgoogleupdated, which presumably fetches Google-updated attributes.

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 implicit usage context by noting the data is 'as last set by the merchant' and 'may not reflect updates from Google or user-generated content.' This suggests that for live Google-updated attributes, the agent should look at alternative tools (e.g., the getgoogleupdated sibling). However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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