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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that ratings are 0 for free-tier businesses and that WhatsApp/phone/address fields require a keyed connection. It stops short of describing failure behavior for invalid slugs or any rate limiting.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the return payload and the two caveats. Telegraphic but every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must cover return shape and behavior itself, and it does: it lists returned fields, explains the rating tier edge case, and flags the keyed-connection prerequisite for private fields. Enough for an agent to call this correctly and interpret the response.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents 'slug'. The description repeats the lookup-by-slug framing but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema states.

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 public details of a specific business by its slug') and enumerates the returned fields. It implicitly separates itself from search_businesses by emphasizing single-record lookup by slug, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 only implied: you need a slug, which the schema says comes from the URL. There is no explicit 'use this when you already have a slug, use search_businesses when you don't', and no guidance on error cases such as an unknown slug.

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