profile_comments_create

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

The description fully discloses the async behavior: response with status 'pending', background job publishes to Google, and status updates to 'published' or 'failed'. This adds significant transparency beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false), which already indicate a write operation.

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 concise and efficient, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, including the constraint on top-level comments and the async behavior. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return behavior (immediate response with pending status). However, it could briefly mention the response structure or expected fields. Overall, it covers the essential aspects.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantics beyond what is in the schema's property descriptions; it only reiterates that parent_id is required. No additional parameter context is provided.

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's purpose: replying to an existing profile comment (Google Business review). It uses the verb 'Reply' and specifies the resource 'profile comment', distinguishing it from siblings like comments_create for top-level comments.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (to reply to existing comments) and includes a clear prohibition (top-level comments NOT allowed). It also notes that parent_id is required and explains the async behavior, providing complete guidance.

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