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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the returned field set ('prices with sources' hints at provenance), but says nothing about not-found behavior, partial records, or whether lookups are exact-match. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate rather than rich.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the returned content front-loaded and the invocation forms second. Nothing to trim.

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 responsibly enumerates the returned fields, and it covers both addressing modes. Missing only edge-case behavior (no match, missing fields, ambiguous slug), which keeps it from a 5.

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 50% and `id` and `slug` are undocumented in the schema; the description compensates by explaining that id comes from search results and that slug is paired with city + state, which is the key semantic an agent needs to pick the right parameter combination. It still doesn't explain what a slug looks like or the id format.

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 specific retrieval of a single business and enumerates what the record contains (address, phone, website, hours, services, prices with sources), which clearly separates it from a list/search tool. It does not name any sibling explicitly, but the 'id from search results' phrasing signals the relationship to 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?

Gives two concrete calling modes: reuse an id from search results, or supply city + state + slug. That implicitly tells the agent to call search first when it lacks an id. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is given, so it stops 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.