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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description's only added behavioral value is listing returned fields (useful given no output schema), but it says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid or stale business_id, or about deposit/refund field mutability.

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 sentence with no waste; the resource identity is front-loaded and the returned fields follow immediately. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 tool with annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the essential contract: what it looks up, where the ID comes from, and roughly what comes back. The only real gap is not clarifying its relationship to get_open_times for hours data.

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?

There is one parameter, business_id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It does implicitly indicate the ID originates from search_businesses results, which is genuinely helpful, but it adds nothing about format, length limits, or whether an ID from a different source would work.

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 resource ('one business') and enumerates the payload ('name, services, hours, deposit and the refund policy'), and ties itself to the sibling 'search_businesses' as the source. The verb is only implicit ('Details for...'), so it is clear but not as crisp as an explicit 'Fetch'/'Get' phrasing.

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 phrase 'from search_businesses' implies the workflow (look up an ID via search first, then call this), which is meaningful guidance. It gives no explicit exclusions, however, and notably does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'get_open_times' even though it claims to return 'hours'.

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