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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that tier-specific fees/features are nested under plan_tiers whereas general ones are top-level, and that certain details are not returned by the sibling tool. It does not discuss auth or side effects, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'Get' and the detail-oriented purpose.

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 moderately dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each clause adds meaningful context—excluded fields, tier nesting, follow-up usage—though the long parenthetical around gotcha fees makes the opening sentence somewhat heavy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (fees, features, tier nesting) and how it differs from the sibling tool. The agent has enough context to decide when to invoke this tool and what to expect from the response.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the slug should come from query_business_checking results and must not be an internal database id, but it adds little beyond the schema's own parameter description. No new parameter semantics are introduced.

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 names a specific verb ('Get full detail') and a specific resource ('one specific business checking listing'), and explicitly contrasts it with query_business_checking's broad list. It clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling.

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 explicitly says to use this as a follow-up after query_business_checking and names the alternative tool. It also identifies the trigger: when the caller has already identified one listing by slug, implying when not to use it (for broad list results).

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