gmb_info_locations_getgoogleupdated

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the returned data may differ from the merchant's version and includes masks indicating differing fields. This goes beyond the annotation baseline, though it doesn't cover error cases or pagination.

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 sentences that immediately state the verb and resource, then add meaningful context about the response nature. No filler or redundant information beyond the API path, which is acceptable.

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?

With rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and a 100% schema coverage, the description adequately completes the picture by explaining the response's key feature (masks indicating differences). It doesn't detail pagination or error behavior, but for a single-resource GET this is sufficient.

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 all six parameters already described (e.g., `name` as 'Required. The name of the location to fetch'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('the specified location as it appears live on Google Maps and Search'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling `gmb_info_locations_get` by emphasizing the 'consumer-facing view' that may differ from the merchant's version.

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 returns the live consumer-facing view rather than the merchant's version, implying use when the live Google view is needed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like `gmb_info_locations_get`, but the differentiation is evident.

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