get_businessGet full details for a single business (listing) by its slug. Call this when the user asks for more information about a specific business. Use the slug from search_businesses results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns 'full details' for a single business, but does not elaborate on edge cases, response format, or any special behavior, which is acceptable 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?
Three concise, purposeful sentences: the first defines the action, the second specifies when to use, and the third explains parameter sourcing. No wasted words.
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-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter source. 'Full details' is somewhat vague about the return structure, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and good annotations.
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?
The input schema has no description for 'slug' (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining slug identifies the business and directing the user to retrieve it from search_businesses results. This is clear and actionable.
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 states the verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for a single business (listing)') with the mechanism ('by its slug'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_businesses and get_broker by focusing on a single business detail retrieval.
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?
It explicitly says 'Call this when the user asks for more information about a specific business' and instructs to 'Use the slug from search_businesses results', giving clear when-to-use and input sourcing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: search vs. get vs. contact for brokers and businesses, list operations for categories and languages, and an auth check. There is no meaningful overlap between tools.
All tools use snake_case with a clear verb_noun structure (contact_, get_, list_, search_), and who_am_i is a conventional exception. The pattern is consistent and predictable.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a business-listing marketplace. Each tool serves a clear purpose in the discovery and contact workflow without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the full user journey: searching and viewing businesses and brokers, retrieving supporting content (categories, languages), contacting parties, and verifying authentication. No critical operations are missing for the apparent domain.