gmb_qanda_locations_questions_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: deprecation, the verified-location requirement, pagination, and that only 'some' answers are included. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose, a deprecation warning, and a precondition. Every word earns its place; front-loading the deprecation status is especially useful for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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 paginated list tool, the description covers the main action, scope, verification precondition, and deprecation. Although there is no output schema, the parameter schema is rich and the description adequately explains the operation's context. Minor gap: it does not note that page size defaults to 10, but that is in the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already fully documented (e.g., pageSize defaults, filter options, orderBy valids). The description adds no parameter-specific details, which is acceptable given the exhaustive schema; baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('paginated list of questions and some of its answers for a specified location'). It distinguishes this list operation from sibling create/update/delete tools, and the '[DEPRECATED]' marker adds important context without obscuring the purpose.

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?

It provides a clear prerequisite ('only valid if the specified location is verified') and signals deprecation, but does not mention alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it. The deprecation implies avoiding new use, yet no replacement is named, leaving the guidance incomplete.

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