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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful 'legacy alias' status, but says nothing about return format, caching, or whether the legacy surface may diverge from the replacements.

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 identity of the tool and the routing advice both front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema and no parameters, so the description only needed to convey identity and routing, which it does. It could have said more about what 'legacy' implies (deprecation risk, parity with replacements), which is the one remaining gap for an agent deciding whether to rely on it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.

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 resource scope (public contact, location, hours) and explicitly labels itself a legacy alias, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools. It is clear enough to select correctly, though 'legacy alias' leaves the exact scope of returned data somewhat fuzzy.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to preferred alternatives: get_business_info, get_locations, and get_services. It gives no condition mapping each sibling to a use case, and does not say when this legacy tool is still the right call, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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