well-014-business-lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description layers on traits they do not cover: per-call pricing, a 3-request rate limit, that emails are never returned ('email_present' only), that caller inputs are not retained, that public pages may be briefly cached, and a no-warranty disclaimer. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that goes beyond structured fields.

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 verb and resource, then a dense but useful list of outputs and constraints. Slightly redundant disclaimers ('As is; not advice or verification' and 'Provided as is, with no warranty...') repeat the same idea, costing a little efficiency.

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 correctly enumerates what is returned, and it also covers cost, rate limits, data-retention, and caching. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call it.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates some returned content (llms.txt, robots rules) but adds no syntax or format detail for the url/include_llms_txt/include_raw_jsonld parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Read one public https business site') and enumerates the exact fields it extracts (name, offerings, hours, address/phone, links, robots rules, llms.txt, readiness score). There are no siblings to distinguish from, but the scope is unambiguous and an agent knows precisely what the tool returns.

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 gives clear operating context that governs use: cost ($0.005 USDC x402), a hard cap of 'Max 3 requests', and a read-only, non-advice framing. There are no alternative tools to route between, so the missing 'when not to use' clause is low-impact, but no explicit use conditions are stated.

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