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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds substantial context: confirmed vs unconfirmed facts, evidence URLs and source dates, coverage classes, and the guarantee that suggestedActions are never executed. It stops short of stating not-found behavior or whether hours carry a timezone.

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?

Front-loaded with the return summary, which is good, but the body is a dense unbroken run of caveats. The open-now point is made three times ('Operating status does not establish open-now hours', 'Posted hours are not open-now', 'These facts carry no availability claim'), which is redundant.

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 carries the full burden of explaining the payload, and it does so thoroughly field-by-field (evidence, conflicts, capabilities, coverage, hosted/hostedBy). Gaps are minor: id provenance and error/empty-result 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the single id parameter carries no documented meaning beyond a UUID pattern. The only hint is the passing mention that hosted/hostedBy entries 'have their own id for get_business'; the description never says the id comes from find_business/discover_local results or what happens with an unknown id.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource plus scope: 'Returns a published business profile, hours, area, and rating.' That clearly distinguishes it from write siblings and from the search siblings (find_business, find_nearby_businesses), though it never names them explicitly as the retrieval path that produces the id.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required id plus 'each has its own id for get_business' suggests a detail-fetch after a search or after finding a hosted/hostedBy reference. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to find_business/find_nearby_businesses as the way to obtain an id.

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