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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the scope of returned data (useful for judging whether a call is warranted) and implies read-only semantics via 'public profile', but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior for invalid slugs, or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the payload contents and closed with the required inputs. The content enumeration is long but earns its place given there is no output schema; only mild density cost.

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 and no annotations, the description does the necessary work of telling the agent what comes back, which is the key gap it needed to fill. It stops short of error/edge-case behavior but is complete enough to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the `locale` enum values and the 'From a search_facilities result' provenance notes. The description reinforces the slug-pair relationship but adds no syntax or format detail 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 states a specific verb and resource — retrieving the full public profile for a single vendor — and enumerates exactly which facets are returned (services, creatives, production types, rooms, equipment, addresses). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search_facilities, which returns the slugs this tool consumes.

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 explains the calling context explicitly: this is the follow-up to search_facilities, taking the `companySlug`/`facilitySlug` pair from that result. That establishes the when-to-use chain, but it gives no when-not guidance (e.g., what to do if you only have one slug, or that this is not a filterable search).

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