gmb_v4_accounts_locations_media_list

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the endpoint, such as pagination behavior, ordering, or what is included in the returned media list. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also provides no new useful behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence with a clear endpoint and one-line summary. There is no redundant text or filler; every word serves a purpose. It is appropriately front-loaded with the HTTP method and resource path.

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 list operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain pagination via pageToken, the return format, or when this tool is suitable compared to related operations. The annotations cover safety but not the operational details needed to invoke the tool correctly in various scenarios.

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 zero description coverage for its three parameters, so the description must compensate. The endpoint pattern 'accounts/*/locations/*' gives context for the parent parameter, but pageSize and pageToken are left entirely unexplained. The description does not mention pagination or how these params affect the result, leaving a significant gap.

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 lists media for a location ('Lists media for a location.'), and the endpoint pattern 'GET v4/{parent=accounts/*/locations/*}/media' provides the resource path. It distinguishes from sibling media_get/media_create but does so implicitly via the word 'list' and the resource scope, so it is clear but not as explicit as the best examples.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like media_get, media_create, or other list operations (e.g., localposts_list, reviews_list). The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which this tool should be preferred.

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