Spotby Business Registry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add useful return-content detail (services, hours, contacts, photos, FAQs, products, freshness). However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention auth, failure behavior, 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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with a dense, well-organized list of returned fields and no filler. Every phrase adds information about what the tool returns.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of enumerating the profile contents. Its main gap is the absence of any behavioral or error-handling context, but the core retrieval scope is well covered.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already provides for that parameter.

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 names a specific resource ('one business') and clearly states it returns a full profile, unlike the broader search_businesses tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_changes, but the purpose is still easy to distinguish from both siblings.

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 does not say when to use this tool versus search_businesses or get_changes, nor does it describe prerequisites such as obtaining an id first. The intended use as a detail-fetching follow-up to search is only implied by the schema parameter description.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers little: no mention of ordering of results, pagination via the limit cap, whether deleted or newly-created businesses appear in the feed, or whether results are bounded by a time window. 'Freshness feed' hints at recency ordering but doesn't commit to it.

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 short, front-loaded statements with no filler; the core concept (changed since) leads. The opening noun-phrase fragment rather than a verb statement is a minor stylistic weakness.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema this covers the essential concept, but leaves the agent guessing about limit behavior, result ordering, and whether deletions are represented — questions an agent must answer to poll 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 only 50%: 'since' is documented (ISO 8601 with example), but 'limit' has no description in either schema or prose. The description's 'since a given moment' merely restates the documented parameter and offers nothing on limit, pagination, or cursor advancement.

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?

Names a specific resource (businesses) plus the discriminating filter (changed since a given moment) and characterizes the result as a 'freshness feed.' This is enough to tell it apart from get_business and search_businesses even though neither sibling is named.

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?

'Use it to stay in sync without re-crawling' gives one motivating use case and implicitly contrasts with repeated search_businesses calls. It stops short of explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and never names an alternative tool or states prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it explains ranking logic, that any term can match, that location matches both business address and served areas, and that results include provenance and match reasons. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

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 and efficient: it states the core search capability first, then ranking, location matching, provenance, and finally the sibling alternative. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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?

For a 6-parameter search tool with no required parameters, no output schema, and solid schema coverage, the description provides the key behavioral context an agent needs: ranking, location scope, result provenance, and where to go for full details.

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 high (83%), so the schema already documents most parameters, including the specialized category and industry fields. The description adds useful semantic context for query and location matching, but does not elaborate on limit, category, or industry 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: search businesses in the Spotby registry using natural-language terms and/or location. It also distinguishes the tool from its sibling by explicitly directing users to get_business for full details.

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 clearly explains when to use this tool: for discovery via natural-language terms or location. It names get_business as the alternative for full details, but does not mention get_changes or give explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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