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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by clarifying that the data reflects what the merchant 'currently publishes' and warns against inventing menu items, which reinforces the open-world nature of the data. It also clarifies that the handle is the same public ID/handle as /b/{id}.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core fetch operation and resource definition, then supplies usage context and a critical anti-hallucination instruction, all in a compact form.

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 fetch tool with strong annotations, the description is complete: it names the return categories, identifies the handle source, states the intended use case, and warns against fabrication. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema already describes the single 'handle' parameter with 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful context by noting it is the same public ID/handle used in /b/{id}. This helps an agent understand where to source the value, which goes beyond the schema's terse 'Agent Handle / facade handle' label.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and a clearly defined resource ('published business facade') with concrete contents listed (menu/services, hours, booking capabilities). It also ties the identifier to the public /b/{id} route, making the tool's role distinct from sibling tools like get_agent or get_merged_profile.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use for customer-facing answers about what the merchant currently publishes.' It adds a strong negative instruction ('do not invent menu items'), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one.

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