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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real value beyond them by disclosing that facts carry source and date, that source disagreements are surfaced, and that unlisted businesses fail to open - a useful error condition. It omits what the output looks like structurally, but the annotations carry the rest.

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?

Three tight sentences lead with the verb and resource, then trigger conditions, then the failure mode. It is dense but every clause carries information; a lighter enumeration of returned fields might read better, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the record's contents and its sourcing behavior, and it covers the key failure case for a 3-parameter read tool. The only gap is the undocumented format option, which the enum and default mostly handle.

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?

At 67% schema coverage the schema already documents the domain parameter, the truvon_id alternative, and search_id; the description only reinforces the domain-based lookup ('by website domain'). It says nothing about the format enum or search_id, so it adds little meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource - retrieving one business's full record by website domain - and enumerates what the record holds: prices, offers, hours, ways to act, sourced facts and conflicting values. It is clearly the detail-fetch counterpart to find_local_businesses, though it never names that sibling directly.

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 gives concrete triggers - 'Open it for a finalist, and whenever a phone or address matters' - and states a hard precondition: 'A business that is not listed cannot be opened,' implying the record must originate from a search. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions explicitly.

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