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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by listing the exact content returned, which goes beyond the annotation hints. No contradictions; the read-only hint aligns perfectly with 'Get full details'.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then uses a colon to list contents. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description provides sufficient context: what it does, how to identify the business (slug), and what it returns (field list). Sibling tools are clearly distinguishable, and the annotations fill in the safety profile.

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 description coverage is 100% with a single slug parameter well-described as 'Business slug from search_businesses'. The description only repeats 'by slug' and adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'business profile' and identifies the key parameter 'by slug'. It enumerates the included fields (description, contact, hours, services, FAQs, actions), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_businesses or get_reviews.

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 phrase 'full details' and 'by slug' imply this is the comprehensive profile tool, and the schema's reference to search_businesses provides context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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