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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the response includes (rank, pillars, contributions, provenance) but does not clarify optional parameter behavior (e.g., what happens if metro or category is omitted). With annotations covering the main behavioral traits, this is adequate but not rich.

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 is front-loaded with the action and resource, then packs in what the response includes. No redundant words or information. Every element 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?

For a read-only query tool with a provided output schema, the description adequately covers the returned data (rank, pillars, point contributions, provenance) and the ranking context. It could improve by clarifying optional metro/category behavior, but the overall complexity is low and the description is sufficient.

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%, so each parameter already has a label. The description connects slug to 'company's score' and metro/category to 'ranking,' but does not explain parameter interplay or defaults. This meets the baseline but adds no new parameter details beyond the schema.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Return' and defines the exact resource: one company's score in a metro/category ranking. It enumerates the contents (rank, weighted pillars, contributions, provenance), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_rankings (list-level) and get_business_profile (general profile).

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 usage context—when a detailed single-company score breakdown is needed—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_rankings or compare_businesses. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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