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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying exactly which fields the response includes (prices, booking rules, cancellation policy, etc.), which goes beyond the annotation. No contradiction or missing critical behavior for a simple getter.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the scope and content efficiently. No filler words, and every listed field adds value for an agent deciding whether to call this tool. It's concise without being terse.

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 one-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent what it returns and what it applies to. Annotations cover safety, and the parameter is self-documenting in the schema. Nothing needed for a correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already provides full parameter documentation with a description 'business_id or slug' at 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter itself, which is acceptable given the schema coverage. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear verb ('get') and a specific resource ('business details'), then enumerates the exact content: offerings, prices, extras, booking rules, intake questions, hours, cancellation policy, contacts. This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_businesses (searching) or op_businesses (operator listing) without ambiguity.

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 for a single business by saying 'one business' and listing the full card contents. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know to use this for fetching a single business rather than searching or listing. No explicit comparison, but the purpose is self-evident.

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