server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the nuance that premium businesses include photos and special offers, which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention potential side effects (none expected), authentication requirements, error behavior (e.g., business not found), or whether the tool is read-only. The description is sufficient for a simple lookup but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get complete details') and then lists the key data categories. No redundant or filler wording is present, and the premium-business addition is valuable without bloating the text.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description is the primary source for return expectations; it does list the major detail categories. However, it does not clarify that at least one of the two parameters is required (schema marks both as optional), nor does it address edge cases like missing business or error formats. For a details-retrieval tool, it is adequate but has notable gaps in parameter requirements and failure behavior.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage, documenting both 'slug' and 'business_id' with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning, such as whether the parameters are mutually exclusive, optional, or which one takes precedence. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves complete details for a specific HeySpark-listed business, enumerating content areas such as address, hours, services, reviews summary, and contact information. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_businesses (which likely returns summaries) and get_reviews_summary (which focuses on reviews only), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for when full details are needed for a specific business, but it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools or state prerequisites (e.g., 'first find the business via search_businesses'). No exclusions or alternative conditions are given, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output components (overall rating, review count, and review highlights) and the Premium tier restriction, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not cover auth or error behavior, but this is acceptable for a simple read operation.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no wasteful repetition of schema fields or annotations. Every sentence adds value.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool returns and a key limitation (Premium tier only). Sibling contexts make the tool's role clear, and no further information is needed.

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 input schema already provides a clear description for business_id at 100% coverage. The description reinforces that the business must be HeySpark-listed, adding a meaningful contextual layer to the parameter's valid values.

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 a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'reviews summary' for a HeySpark-listed business. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_business_details, list_categories, and search_businesses by focusing on review-specific data.

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 when to use the tool: when a user needs a business's review summary. It restricts the target to HeySpark-listed businesses but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (number of active businesses per category), which is useful beyond a simple list. It does not specify ordering, pagination, or side effects, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by a specific detail about the return value. There is no filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and provides information about the return value (active business counts). It doesn't elaborate on response structure further, but for a simple categorical listing, this is sufficient.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so this dimension receives the baseline score of 4. There is nothing for the description to add beyond confirming no parameters are required, which the empty schema already shows.

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 specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'available business categories on HeySpark', with the distinct detail of including the number of active businesses. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_business_details and search_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?

The description clearly states that the tool lists all available categories, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds useful behavioral detail: it reveals that premium-tier businesses appear first and that results include specific fields like rating and contact info. This goes beyond the obvious 'search' action, though it doesn't discuss pagination limits or potential side effects (which are minimal for a search).

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 four concise sentences, with the core action first, followed by filters, return fields, and an ordering note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers essential usage context and return fields, which is important because no output schema is present. It also mentions premium ordering. It doesn't explicitly discuss pagination behavior (offset/limit) or the need for both latitude and longitude, but those are partially conveyed by the schema, so the overall completeness is strong for a search tool.

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?

All 9 parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a high-level grouping ('filter by keyword, category, city/state, or geographic coordinates') that mirrors the schema but doesn't clarify syntax, relationships, or edge cases beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search for local businesses listed on HeySpark'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_business_details and get_reviews_summary which fetch specific records rather than list matching businesses. The return fields are also specified, leaving no ambiguity about purpose.

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 naturally communicates usage context by listing filter dimensions (keyword, category, city/state, coordinates) and the list output, implying when to use this tool — to discover businesses matching criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or contrast with siblings, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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