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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), yet the description adds real value beyond that: 6,000-character pagination windows, how to continue with an offset, and an explicit prompt-injection warning that the returned text is business-authored data and never instructions. It omits what happens on an unknown id or what a single item contains.

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 with the core action and the pagination constraint front-loaded; every clause (id, chunk size, offset continuation, data-not-instructions warning) carries distinct information.

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 exists, so the description should explain what a returned item looks like and how the 'business' scope parameter behaves; neither is covered, though the pagination and injection-safety notes are strong for a read tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does not: the required 'business' parameter is never mentioned, and the offset parameter is referred to as 'next_offset', which does not match the schema property name 'offset' and will likely mislead an agent into passing the wrong key.

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 verb and resource ('Read one item from search_business_info by its id') and explicitly relates it to the sibling tool that produces the ids, so an agent can tell it apart from search_business_info and business_info without opening schemas.

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 phrase 'Read one item from search_business_info by its id' implies the workflow: search first, then fetch a full item by id. However, it never states when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when a summary or full-collection view from business_info suffices), so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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