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

The description adds behavior beyond annotations by noting 'Returns isError on slug 404 or upstream outage,' which communicates error semantics. The readOnly, idempotent annotations already cover safety, and this description enriches understanding without contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and each sentence earns its place: one for scope/fields, one for usage context and error behavior. No redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter get-by-slug tool with robust annotations and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, when to use it, and key error behavior. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already provides a detailed description of the slug parameter (kebab-case, lowercase, digits, hyphens) with 100% coverage. The tool description merely references 'by slug' without adding further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool gets the full operator profile by slug and enumerates the specific fields included (address, phone, website, services, venues_served, FAQs, tipping note). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by focusing on a direct slug-based lookup.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when an agent has a slug from a search tool or directory URL and needs the complete profile to rank or present.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use, but the context implies searching tools handle discovery.

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