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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: not-found returned for unknown id/domain, and that decision-maker names/emails are gated behind a Team plan for the signed-in member server, so decision_maker_count is only a count. It does not discuss rate limits or caching, but that is minor for a single-entity lookup.

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, front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and the input source, then enumerates returned fields. The field enumeration runs long and partly duplicates the existing output schema, but it reads as informative rather than padded.

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?

Given a single required param, annotations covering safety, and an output schema, the description supplies the missing error behavior (not-found) and the access-control nuance around decision makers. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the lookup is cached or what domain normalization is expected.

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% and the single parameter's description already says "business id from search_businesses, or its website domain such as acmeav.com"; the description restates that same duality plus a maxLength-implied domain example. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

"Get one event business from the directory" states a specific verb and resource plus the cardinality, and the parameter sourcing (id from search_businesses or website domain) makes clear how it differs from the sibling search_businesses listing tool.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the input comes from — an id returned by search_businesses or a domain — which implicitly routes the agent to search first when it lacks an id. No explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion is given, so it falls short of a 5.

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