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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the profile is 'public' (suggesting no auth) and lists what content is included, but does not mention error behavior, locale effects, or response format details. This is adequate but not rich.

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, begins with the core function, and includes a targeted usage note. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes value.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns (content areas) and where the parameters come from, which is sufficient for a simple three-parameter read tool without an output schema. It lacks error handling notes but is otherwise complete for the tool's complexity.

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%; the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states. The phrase 'pair returned by search_facilities' lightly reinforces the parameter descriptions but does not provide new syntax or constraints.

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 the tool retrieves the full public profile for a single vendor, enumerating the specific content areas (services, creatives, production types, rooms, addresses). This distinguishes it from sibling search/list tools by focusing on a single facility's detailed 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?

The description explicitly instructs that the companySlug and facilitySlug pair should come from search_facilities, giving concrete usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like `fetch` or `search_facilities`, though the pair-reference implies a follow-up flow.

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