gmb_verify_locations_verify

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotent. The description adds no extra context about side effects—e.g., that it may send a postcard, email, or SMS—or that a verification token must be obtained beforehand. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 sentence that efficiently includes the HTTP method and resource name. It is front-loaded and has no filler. However, it is slightly too minimal, omitting useful context that could be added without bloat.

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 complex mutation tool with six parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and dependencies on prior API calls (e.g., fetching verification options). The one-line description is insufficient to guide an agent on correct invocation, side effects, or the verification workflow.

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%: every parameter (name, body, fields, etc.) has a description, including detailed explanations for method, phoneNumber, emailAddress, and others. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema carries the burden, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Starts the verification process for a location' with an explicit HTTP method (POST) and resource pattern (v1/{+name}:verify). This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'verifications_complete' or 'fetchverificationoptions', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 related verification tools. It does not mention prerequisites such as calling FetchVerificationOptions first, nor does it explain that this should be followed by a completion step. There is no exclusionary or alternative tool referencing.

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