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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the result (services, prices, rating, claim status, AI-message acceptance), which matters since there is no output schema. It does not mention auth or rate limits, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the operative condition first ('Use this when...') and the exclusion second. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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 read-only lookup with a single fully-documented parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-field information (services, prices, rating, claim status, messaging acceptance) plus precise usage routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents that vendor_slug comes from search_vendors results or a servana.ai URL. The description echoes this same sourcing without adding format or syntax detail, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting — baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb (get one specific business) and enumerates exactly what the profile contains: services, prices, rating, claim status, and AI-message acceptance. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search tool with 'Do not use to search for businesses.'

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?

It states a clear trigger ('when the user asks about one specific business from search_vendors results or a servana.ai page') and an explicit exclusion ('Do not use to search for businesses'), effectively routing the agent between this tool and search_vendors.

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