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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable content-level transparency: it enumerates what the record contains (facts, verdict, source URL, check date, cross-source conflicts, View Google Listing link) and explicitly excludes Google review text, ratings, and listing values. This is richer than average, though it could mention pagination or output size for a 'full record'.

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?

A single dense sentence followed by a short second sentence for the parameter source. Front-loads the what/when well. Slightly long within the first sentence but every clause carries content-specific 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering behavior, the description is complete: it explains the call context, input provenance, contents, and exclusions. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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% and the lone parameter is fully documented with an example in the schema itself. The description adds the provenance context ('state licence number from a search_businesses or verify_business result'), which is helpful but overlaps with the schema's example. Baseline 3 per rubric.

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 (get) and resource (business evidence record), and clearly distinguishes itself from search_businesses and verify_business by positioning it as the deep-dive after finding a business. The scope is well-defined: full evidence record with facts, verdicts, sources, and conflicts.

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 says when to use it ('when you need the complete evidence record behind a search result') and names the upstream siblings as the source of the input, creating a clear call sequence. Implied exclusion of Google review text/ratings further narrows its purpose.

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