gmb_v4_accounts_locations_reviews_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the GET verb and endpoint format, which is consistent with read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral nuances like pagination limits or response ordering, so it adds only minimal context beyond the annotations.

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, using only two short sentences. It front-loads the endpoint format and then provides a one-sentence functional summary. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 list operation, the description covers the core purpose and resource. However, the absence of output schema or parameter descriptions means the agent must infer pagination behavior and response shape. Given the tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient but lacks rich context that would improve correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only clarifies the parent path pattern ('accounts/*/locations/*') but does not explain the purpose of pageSize or pageToken. Since pagination parameters are common but not self-evident to all agents, the lack of compensation is a notable 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 action: 'Lists reviews for a location.' The verb 'Lists' and resource 'reviews' are specific and unambiguous. It also includes the exact endpoint pattern, distinguishing it from review-related siblings like get, updatereply, and deletereply.

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 implies usage when you need to list reviews for a location, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It lacks any comparison to reviews_get for single-review retrieval or guidance on pagination, leaving usage context implicit.

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