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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description carries the remaining burden by disclosing what content comes back (tagline, story, policies, free-text blocks), which is the key behavioral fact for a content-read tool. It doesn't say what happens when the business hasn't filled these in, leaving empty-result behavior unstated.

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 with zero waste: the first front-loads what is returned, the second frames the caller intents that select this tool. No repetition of the name beyond what's needed for scoping.

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 must and does describe the returned content well enough to call confidently. The only gap is edge-case behavior (missing about text, multiple locations) which the schema partially covers via the location_id default.

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 description coverage is 100%: both `business` and `location_id` are documented in-schema, including the default-to-first-location behavior. The description adds no parameter guidance of its own, so the 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?

Names the specific resource (the business's self-description on its booking page) and enumerates what it contains: tagline, about-us story, studio policies, extra text blocks. That content list distinguishes it from siblings like get_business (structured facts) and get_booking_policy (scheduling rules). It never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 concrete trigger intents ("what is this place like?", "what should I know before I go?") that map cleanly to a caller's question, which is more actionable than most usage guidance. It does not state when to prefer get_business or get_booking_policy instead, so boundary cases with siblings are left to inference.

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