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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the bar for disclosure is lower. The description adds value by listing what the profile includes (identity, locations, contact, policies, images, public documents, languages), which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the data returned. No contradictions.

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?

A single, dense sentence that is front-loaded with 'Full profile' and immediately lists contents. Zero filler or redundant phrasing—every word contributes to the meaning.

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 the existence of an output schema and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description does not need to explain return values. It provides a clear overview of the tool's scope, but could mention when to use it over siblings for full completeness; however, that falls more under usage guidance than contextual completeness.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including detailed guidance on the business field (Opaque, stable, do not parse) and the sections enum. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter details, so per the rubric the baseline of 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 states a specific verb+resource: "Full profile for one business" and enumerates the contents (identity, locations, contact, policies, images, public documents, languages). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_business_services or check_business_availability, which have different scopes.

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 explicitly says the tool is 'for one business found through search_businesses', implying it should be used after a search and for a single entity. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like get_business_agent or compare_business_services, so only partial guidance is provided.

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