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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: the returned payload is a canonical link, and archived/quarantined entries fail rather than return — a failure mode an agent needs to plan around.

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, no filler. The core action and scope lead, and the availability caveat is appended where it does the most good.

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 two-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input provenance, the return value type, and one failure condition. What remains thin is error semantics beyond archived/quarantined (e.g., unknown id) and whether the link is absolute.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It usefully explains the provenance of both parameters (returned from discover_listings) and that kind selects business vs. event, but it does not state the id's format or length bound or spell out accepted kind values beyond what the enum already shows.

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 ("Read one public business or event") plus the exact addressing scheme (kind + id). It is immediately distinguishable from discover_listings, which is named as the source of those identifiers rather than as a competitor.

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?

Clearly positions the tool as the follow-up to discover_listings and constrains the input to identifiers obtained there. It also notes that archived or quarantined entries are unavailable, which implicitly tells the agent this is not a search or recovery path, but it never names an alternative for that case.

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