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

The description frames this as a pure retrieval ('Get business details'), while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so an agent cannot tell whether calling it has side effects. No mention of authentication via the aggregator, rate limits, or what happens when identifiers disagree beyond the bare constraint. With annotations present the bar is lower, but this tension is unexplained.

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?

Two tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the identifier constraint is placed where an agent will read it first. It is efficient but so terse that the gaps are a matter of under-specification, not verbosity.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape need not be explained, but with 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and an unresolved read-only question, an agent lacks enough to call this confidently. The unmentioned country parameter and the unmapped data_id/ludocid fields are real holes.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it only partially does: it names three identifier concepts without mapping them to data_id, ludocid, or place_id, and the country parameter (default 'us') is never mentioned at all.

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 ('Get business details') plus the three accepted identifier kinds (feature ID, place ID, decimal CID), which separates it from google_maps_search (query-based) in the sibling list. It doesn't explicitly name search as the alternative, but the lookup-by-identifier scope is clear.

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?

'using at least one ... ID' implies the precondition and 'Multiple identifiers must agree' gives a consistency rule, but it never says when to prefer this over google_maps_search or where to obtain those IDs. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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