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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete API route and clarifies that the id is an obfuscated token rather than a numeric key, but says nothing about failure behavior (missing/unknown id) or what the response contains.

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 sentences, identity and scope front-loaded, endpoint appended as supporting detail. Nothing wasted and nothing buried.

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 single-entity fetch with no output schema, the description leaves the return payload completely unspecified — the agent cannot know whether to expect address, hours, or nested location settings. It is adequate for invocation but incomplete for planning downstream use.

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% with a single parameter already described as 'Obfuscated business id', so the description merely echoes the schema's wording. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the semantic work and the description adds no format or sourcing detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one business location') with a clear scope ('one', 'by obfuscated id'), which distinguishes it from moego_list_businesses and moego_get_company. The endpoint string reinforces exactly what it retrieves, though it doesn't explicitly name the list sibling as the way to discover ids.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by obfuscated id' — the agent infers it must already hold a business id — but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (where the id comes from), and no named alternative such as moego_list_businesses.

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