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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds substantial operational context: it is free, returns up to 60 offerings cheapest first, includes freshness metadata, and explains live_data, connector-sourced offerings, inventory null meaning unknown, and that connected actions route through place_order or book_slot. This is rich transparency without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose and return shape, and the detail is justified because there is no output schema. It is dense but mostly earns its length, though parenthetical lists and phrases like 'in the same shape for every trade' add minor clutter.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: business identity, offerings, actions with required_fields, delivery/pickup/on_site/at_customer details, freshness, and live_data connector behavior. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and interpret 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?

The single id parameter has 100% schema description coverage and is already documented as the business id from search_catalog. The description reinforces that source but adds no additional format, constraints, or edge-case semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly states that this tool returns one business in full and enumerates the payload: identity, offerings, actions, reach methods, freshness, and live_data. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_business, so the verb/resource is clear but sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 gives concrete use cases such as checking delivery, opening status, additional services, and following up when search_catalog returned a business with nothing listed. It names search_catalog as a related tool but does not state when to prefer or avoid sibling tools like get_business or find_business.

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