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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: the result is public, requires no account authority, and excludes street address, ZIP, and signed media links. This clarifies privacy boundaries and access requirements, which is exactly the kind of context annotations alone 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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler and front-loads the usage trigger. It is somewhat dense due to the long list of returned fields and exclusions, but each phrase adds meaningful information. It remains appropriately compact for the amount of context it conveys.

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?

The annotations cover safety, the output schema covers return structure, and the description covers usage context, public scope, and excluded sensitive fields. The main gap is that neither parameter is required and the description does not explain whether the agent should supply domain_key, business_id, or either one. This is minor given the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 domain_key and business_id are already documented. The tool description does not add extra semantic guidance, such as which identifier to prefer or whether one is required. With full schema coverage, 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 states a specific use case ('when a business is already identified'), a specific resource ('public Loppee Trust Card'), and enumerates what is returned. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like lookup_business or get_business_reviews by focusing on the Trust Card's public summary content.

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 starts with 'Use this when...' and gives a clear triggering condition: the business is already identified and the user wants its public Trust Card. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate.

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