gmb_verify_locations_fetchverificationoptions

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

Annotations already convey the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds the HTTP method (POST) and language-dependence, but doesn't disclose side effects, permission requirements, or rate limits. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and avoids unnecessary verbosity. The endpoint string 'POST v1/{+location}:fetchVerificationOptions' is slightly redundant with the tool name but helps clarify 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?

Given the rich schema (100% coverage), annotations, and the tool's relatively straightforward read-like nature, the description is minimally acceptable. However, it doesn't explain what the verification options represent, how they relate to the verification workflow, or what to do with the results. No output schema is present, so a bit more context would be beneficial.

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%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions 'language' and 'location' but these map directly to existing schema fields without adding new meaning. 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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Reports all eligible verification options for a location in a specific language.' This clearly identifies the verb (reports), the resource (verification options), and scope (location and language). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gmb_verify_locations_verify (which performs verification) and gmb_verify_locations_getvoiceofmerchantstate (which retrieves verification state).

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 for when to use this tool (to fetch eligible verification options) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it directly to alternatives. The distinction from sibling tools is implied by the different verbs, but no direct guidance is given.

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