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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by disclosing that results include external website data with a read date, dated checks, and whether the business manages the page. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first sentence front-loads the full content scope, and the second sentence gives the exact input derivation pattern. The list of returned data is dense but every item maps to actual page content, so it earns its place.

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 explaining what the tool returns, and it does so thoroughly by enumerating business details, external website claims with read dates, dated checks, and management status. The input derivation and required parameters are also fully covered, making the definition complete for a simple read-only lookup.

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 both parameters are individually described. The description adds meaning by showing the URL pattern /{country}/b/{slug} and clarifying that the slug comes from either the page address or search_businesses, giving the agent concrete provenance for both inputs rather than only their types.

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 clearly identifies a specific verb-resource: retrieving the full Nearwick business page for a country and slug. It enumerates the exact content included (location, website, opening hours, dated checks, management status) and distinguishes it from sibling search/list tools by targeting a specific page rather than finding businesses.

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 gives clear operational context: use the country code and slug from the page address. It also indirectly points to search_businesses as the source of the slug via the schema. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops 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.