gmb_v4_accounts_locations_localposts_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., error handling, auth requirements), but it does not contradict the annotations. Given the annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences: the first gives the HTTP method and path pattern, the second states the function. It is concise and free of fluff, though the first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name. Still, it earns its place by conveying the resource format.

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?

This is a simple get operation with one parameter, annotations that cover safety, and no output schema. The description states the core function and the resource pattern, which is sufficient for a basic read. It lacks details about the return value or error conditions, but for a straightforward get, this is reasonably complete.

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 no description for the 'name' parameter (0% coverage). The description includes the path template '{name=accounts/*/locations/*/localPosts/*}', which gives some meaning beyond the schema by showing the resource pattern. However, it does not explain what 'name' specifically refers to (e.g., the local post ID), so it only partially compensates for the missing schema description.

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 action ('Gets') and the resource ('a local post'), and the path template accounts/*/locations/*/localPosts/* distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, and list. This is a specific verb+resource statement with no ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when to prefer this over other local post operations or other get tools. The description provides no usage scenario.

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