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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: unlisted records suppress license holder names and names under review, an under-review name reduces the payload to public name, zip, neighborhood, category and license status, and unknown keys return {"error": "not_found"}. That is visibility into masking rules and failure behavior that the annotations do not provide.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the identity modes before the payload and masking rules, so no sentence is wasted. The nested parenthetical describing the page URL versus /records/<slug> is harder to parse than necessary, and the return-field list could be itemized for faster scanning.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it covers the full payload, the masking behavior for unlisted/under-review records, and the error case. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the response.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns more by adding the mutual-exclusivity constraint ('not both') and the provenance of the id value, neither of which appears in the schema where both parameters are optional with no oneOf restriction.

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 (returns) and resource (one business record) plus the two keying modes (id from search_records, or page slug for a listed record). It also enumerates the returned payload, so an agent can distinguish it from search_records and get_place without opening the schema.

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: ids come from search_records, slugs apply only to listed records, and 'Give id or slug, not both' sets the selection rule. It lacks an explicit when-not clause versus sibling lookups like get_place or get_entity, so it falls short of a 5.

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