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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds that the content is static business facts about a specific studio, but says nothing about freshness, caching, or response shape beyond the field list.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the content inventory comes first, the usage trigger second. Nothing is padded or restated from the title.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing the returned fields explicitly (phone, WhatsApp, email, address, hours, area served, price level). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented param, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, and the single 'fields' parameter is fully documented in the schema including dot-notation syntax. The description never mentions this filtering parameter, so it adds nothing beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('get_business_info' → contact details and facts about the studio) and enumerates the exact contents: phone, WhatsApp, email, address, hours, area served, price level. That enumeration makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_faq or get_product.

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?

'Use before telling a person how to reach the studio' gives an explicit triggering condition rather than leaving usage implied. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, which keeps it out of the 5 tier.

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