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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that lookup is directory-scoped and that either an opaque id or an exact name is accepted, but says nothing about failure behavior for unknown or non-unique names, or what 'details' comprises.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource and then the input constraint, with no redundant restatement of the title or name. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

For a simple read tool this covers selection and input, but with no output schema the description never indicates what 'details' actually returns, which is the main thing an agent cannot infer. The lang parameter's effect on returned labels is only explained in the schema, not the description.

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, but the description goes beyond the schema by disclosing the id prefix formats ('f:… or l:…'), which the schema does not mention and which helps the agent validate input. The lang parameter is left entirely to the schema, keeping this from a 5.

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 ('Details for one business from the directory') with an explicit singular scope, which separates it from the sibling search_directory that returns many results. It even names the upstream tool that produces the required id, so the agent can place it in the workflow without opening a 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?

The description implies the correct sequencing: call search_directory first, then pass the returned id here. It does not state exclusions (e.g. what to do if the exact name is ambiguous or if no match exists), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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