Full public detail of one 53ON business by its slug: services, ratings, product catalog with prices, and the link where the user can request a quote and pay. Use the slug returned by search_providers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language for service names. Default es. | |
| slug | Yes | Public slug of the business, for example creacionlaura. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by clarifying the operation is 'public' (no auth required) and specifying the detailed response fields. No contradiction with annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence. It states the purpose, lists key returned data, and provides a usage pointer without waste.
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 2-parameter tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main return contents and usage context. It could mention error cases or the absence of pagination, but the essentials are present.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the context that the slug comes from search_providers, which is minor. It does not explain lang beyond the schema's existing description.
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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('53ON business by its slug'), and clearly enumerates the returned content (services, ratings, product catalog, quote/pay link). It distinguishes itself from sibling search_providers by focusing on detail retrieval for a known slug.
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 explicitly instructs to use the slug returned by search_providers, creating a clear prerequisite and referencing the sibling search tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is actionable and sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools have clearly distinct roles: one searches for providers based on queries, the other fetches details for a specific business. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern: 'get_business' and 'search_providers'. Consistent and predictable.
With only two tools, the server is on the thin side. While it covers the core search-and-retrieve workflow, the count feels minimal, though not unreasonable for a narrow domain.
The pair provides a complete read-only workflow: search for providers (including listing all services with an empty query) and fetch detailed business info. No obvious missing functionality for its stated purpose.