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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that by enumerating what the response contains (name, address, price range, categories, hours, amenities, photos, highlighted reviews) and noting domain targeting, and it is consistent with the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return payload, then the use cases. The long return-value list earns its place because there is no output schema, though the opening title line 'Get Yelp Place Details' is a slight restatement of the name.

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 read-only annotations, 100% schema coverage on two simple params, and no output schema, the description closes the remaining gaps by listing the returned fields and the scenarios that justify a call. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so both placeId and domain are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that lookup is 'by Yelp ID or alias with domain targeting' and adds no format examples, validation rules, or default behavior beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetches a single Yelp business by Yelp ID or alias.' The word 'single' and the reliance on Yelp ID/alias imply differentiation from the sibling search and reviews endpoints, though no sibling is named explicitly, which keeps this short of a 5.

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?

It gives three concrete use cases: enriching leads/listings, monitoring a competitor's rating/review count, and validating hours/amenities before display. That is strong when-to-use guidance, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use or direct alternative (e.g. use yelp_search to find the ID first).

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