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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the important null-means-disabled behavior and warns against constructing URLs. This enriches the operational understanding without repeating what the annotation already communicates.

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 two dense sentences: one for core purpose and one for the key behavioral caveat. It is front-loaded, free of filler, and every sentence adds value.

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 this is a simple read-only tool with one parameter, a complete input schema, and an output schema, this description covers all operational essentials. The null-URL behavior and non-construction rule are exactly the additional context an agent needs.

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 tool description itself does not add parameter semantics, but schema description coverage is 100% and the `business` parameter is already richly explained in the input schema with opaque-ID guidance and pass-through instructions. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states the function: retrieving canonical IDs and endpoint URLs for one business, including MCP/A2A endpoints, agent card, llms.txt, and public page under `protocol_urls`. This is a specific verb-plus-resource definition that distinguishes it from siblings like search_businesses or get_business_info.

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 provides useful within-tool guidance about null URLs: do not construct them and use a non-null surface instead. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_business_info or compare_business_services, so the usage context is clear but not fully explicit.

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