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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a list of return fields, which is informative but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error cases, data freshness, or authorization needs. This is acceptable given the strong annotations.

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 a single sentence that lists the key return values in a clear, logical order. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is front-loaded with the verb 'Return' and the specific business entity.

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 and no parameters, the description provides all necessary information about what the tool returns. It covers all relevant data points (hours, address, coordinates, contact, booking policy) and is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on return content rather than inputs.

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 specifies the action (Return) and the exact resources (operating hours, street address, GPS coordinates, phone, email, booking policy) for a specific business. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_availability and get_pricing which target different concerns.

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 implies usage context by listing specific information types, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_availability or get_booking_url. There is no mention of exclusions or comparison with siblings, so the guidance is only implicit.

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