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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces that this is a public, read-only lookup by saying 'Full public detail.' It also adds meaningful context about what the response includes, including the quote/payment link, which goes beyond the annotation metadata.
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 that immediately states the tool's purpose and key delivery. Every phrase earns its place: scope ('one business'), identifier ('by its slug'), content summary, and the source of the slug.
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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the caller gets, how to obtain the required identifier, and the public nature of the operation, so an agent can invoke it confidently.
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 coverage is 100%, with both slug and lang already described. The description adds extra meaning by tying the slug directly to the output of search_providers and clarifying it identifies one specific business. It does not add much for lang, but the schema already covers that adequately.
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 that this tool fetches full public details for exactly one business by slug, and enumerates the key content areas (services, ratings, product catalog with prices, quote/payment link). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search_providers by specifying that the slug comes from that search tool.
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 gives clear usage context: use the slug returned by search_providers, which implies this is the follow-up detail lookup after searching. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the connection to search_providers provides sufficient orientation.
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 completely distinct purposes: one retrieves a single business's details, the other searches for businesses. There is no ambiguity between them, and the descriptions clearly indicate when to use each.
Both tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern: get_business and search_providers. The naming is consistent and predictable, making it easy for an agent to infer their behavior.
With only two tools, the server feels thin but not entirely unreasonable for a focused lookup service. However, the scope of the domain (finding local businesses) might warrant additional tools for browsing or filtering, making the count borderline.
The tool set covers the core workflow of searching for a provider and fetching its details, but it lacks broader browsing capabilities, such as listing all businesses in an area or filtering by service category directly. This is a notable gap but not a fatal one for basic use cases.