gmb_verify_locations_getvoiceofmerchantstate

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Gets' adds no new behavioral information. It does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or response detail. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the description contributes no additional behavioral context.

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, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the HTTP method and resource path, then states the operation. No words are wasted, though it could potentially add a brief explanatory clause without sacrificing brevity.

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 read-only getter with strong annotations and full schema descriptions, the description covers the essentials. However, it lacks any explanation of what VoiceOfMerchantState is or what conditions apply, which leaves some contextual gap for an agent unfamiliar with the domain. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a reasonable minimal viable description.

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 all 5 parameters including 'name' described as 'Resource name of the location.' The description itself adds no parameter information beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 'Gets the VoiceOfMerchant state' and includes the HTTP GET endpoint. It identifies a specific resource (VoiceOfMerchant state) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like gmb_info_locations_get or gmb_verify_locations_fetchverificationoptions. However, it does not explain what the VoiceOfMerchant state is or when to use it, slightly impacting clarity.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or context such as whether the location must be verified. The agent is given no guidance beyond the basic operation.

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