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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower — and the description still adds real behavioral context: hours exist for fixed locations only, whether online ordering is open, the conditional presence of an order page URL, and the mobile-business caveat. It stops short of describing error behavior for a bad subdomain.

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?

Front-loaded with the identity of the returned resource, followed by the field inventory and then the mobile-business caveat. Two sentences, both earning their place, though the opening sentence is a long comma-separated run-on.

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 return-value burden and does so by enumerating the fields, including conditional ones (hours, order page URL) and the mobile-business exception. Only failure/empty-result behavior for an unknown subdomain is left unaddressed.

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% and the schema already documents the sole subdomain parameter with a concrete example ('nitos' for nitos.shortlistpass.com). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Returns the public profile of one Shortlist business') with an enumerated field list, and the singular 'one business' implicitly contrasts with the plural sibling search_businesses. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied only: you must already hold a subdomain, and the note that mobile business locations live in 'upcoming-events data' hints at redirection to get_upcoming_events. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative for get_menu or search_businesses.

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