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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It is transparent that this tool scrapes an external listing URL and returns a specific list of business fields, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose failure modes, URL validity requirements, rate limits, or output formatting, making it adequate but not exhaustive.

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 definition is compact and well-structured: a short heading, one sentence listing the return fields, and one sentence of usage guidance. There is no filler or redundant restatement of schema information; each sentence adds value.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the input, the returned data fields, and the intended use cases. The only real gap is the lack of behavioral caveats such as error conditions or rate limits, but given the low complexity, the definition provides enough for an agent to call the tool 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% and the single url parameter is already described as 'The YellowPages URL of the place.' The description adds context that this should be a single business listing URL and that URLs typically come from the Search endpoint, but this is incremental beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 identifies a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource (Yellow Pages Place Details), then specifies the exact operation: scraping a single business listing URL and returning a defined set of fields. It is clearly distinct from the sibling search tool because it operates on an existing URL rather than performing a search.

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 explicitly lists use cases: hydrating leads with verified NAP data, building a B2B database from URLs collected via the Search endpoint, and validating business legitimacy and hours before outreach. It references the Search endpoint as the source of URLs, but it does not explicitly say 'do not use this for searching', so it stops just short of full when-not guidance.

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