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

The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with the 'Get' verb, and the description adds detail about the output content without contradicting the annotation. It does not mention destructive side effects or rate limits, but the read-only nature is already covered by the annotation, so the description provides useful additional 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 a single, compact sentence that lists the key components. It contains no redundant information and is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 tool with one parameter and readOnly annotation, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the returned profile includes and where the id originates. No output schema is present, but this is not necessary given the explicit enumeration of returned data.

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?

The single parameter 'id' is described as 'business id / slug from discover_businesses', which offers clear provenance and format. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the extra guidance about where the id comes from raises it to 4.

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 uses the verb 'Get' to specify the action and clearly identifies the resource as 'one business's full machine-readable profile' with enumerated components (schema.org @graph, manifest, services, FAQ, booking_action). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like discover_businesses (which likely lists businesses) and book (which likely performs a booking).

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 implies a prerequisite by stating the id parameter is 'from discover_businesses', which guides the agent to call the discovery tool first. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a full profile is needed vs. a summary).

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