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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, the description discloses a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: field visibility depends on the provider's paid plan tier, so agents know some fields may be absent. It omits what happens when the UUID is invalid or the business does not exist.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return shape, and the sibling redirect is placed last where it belongs. The paid-plan sentence is dense with conditional clauses but each clause conveys real information.

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?

With one parameter, full schema coverage, annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields and their plan-based conditionality is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret the result.

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% with a single UUID parameter fully described, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates the key type ('by UUID'), adding no ambiguity resolution such as whether external or internal IDs are accepted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the public Bezal profile for one business') plus the key ('by UUID'), which immediately separates it from the search_* siblings. It also names the correct sibling for a related but distinct resource type.

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?

Explicitly redirects to get_service_catalog for services, giving a clear when-not rule. It does not, however, tell the agent how to obtain the UUID (e.g., via search_businesses) or address bulk lookups versus compare_businesses.

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