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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, destructive=false, closed world), so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: the lookup key formats (name before .inite.ai vs own domain), the eligibility precondition ('owners confirmed their facts ... proved their domain'), and the presence of agent-contactable endpoints. It adds genuine context rather than restating hints.

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?

It is one long run-on sentence with heavy parenthetical stacking; the key fact (by slug or domain) is front-loaded, but the Atlas digression and repeated 'INITE' branding inflate it. Most sentences earn their place individually, yet the whole would be tighter as two or three short lines.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't enumerate return fields — yet it does so anyway, which is redundant but not harmful. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing; the only gap is the sibling disambiguation against find_business.

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% and both parameters carry examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the slug definition ('the name before .inite.ai') and adds that the two parameters are alternatives, but contributes no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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+resource: retrieves 'one business ... by its INITE slug or its domain', and enumerates what it covers (services, hours, locations, MCP/A2A endpoints). It differentiates itself from the Atlas tools but never distinguishes itself from the sibling find_business, which is the more likely confusion point.

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?

Gives a clear exclusionary rule: 'the INITE Atlas is AI tools ... use it, not this, for which AI tool or app to use', plus practical qualifying facts ('Free, no account' and the domain-confirmation requirement). It stops short of telling the agent when to choose this over the sibling find_business.

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