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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the exclusion rule that 'offices hidden from the public locator are excluded' materially affects what the agent will and won't receive.

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 tight sentences with the core action and key source front-loaded. The second sentence's enumeration of return fields is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it remains compact and readable.

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-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, the required input source, and the visibility exclusion. Prior behavior is covered by annotations and return shape by the output schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 sole parameter is already fully documented in the schema ('Canonical BBB chapter URL from bbb_local_bbbs or a business profile's local_bbb_url'). The description largely restates the same provenance, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured field.

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 (Fetch), resource (local BBB chapter profile), and access key (required canonical URL), and names the two upstream sources (bbb_local_bbbs or a business profile's local_bbb_url). An agent can distinguish this detail tool from the bbb_local_bbbs listing tool without opening either schema.

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 establishes the workflow context: the URL must originate from bbb_local_bbbs or a business's local_bbb_url, so the agent knows this is a follow-up detail call. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with other sibling detail tools (e.g. bbb_business), so it's clear context without full exclusions.

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