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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it enumerates returned content (facts with state, source page, date, asserter), describes claim status and verifications, and notes that the actions list is empty for unclaimed businesses, which tells the agent how to interpret a valid-looking empty result.

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?

One dense sentence with the payload contents front-loaded and the unclaimed-business caveat placed at the end where it belongs. No filler, though the sentence is long enough that it borders on a run-on.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so thoroughly, including the edge case of empty actions for unclaimed businesses. It is only incomplete on provenance of business_id and on any pagination or authorization context, which are minor here.

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 parameter business_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about it — no format, no source, no hint that it comes from find_businesses. For a low-coverage schema the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 communicates that this returns the full Neruva identity record for a business, including facts, claim status, verifications and available actions. It is specific about the resource, but never differentiates itself from the sibling tool get_business, so an agent cannot tell which one to pick from the description alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when this should be preferred over get_business or find_businesses, and no prerequisites stated. The only contextual hint is the parenthetical about unclaimed businesses, which describes the response, not when to invoke.

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