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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the return content ('full schema.org page' with 'profile + meta') and explicitly documenting that salon_id and entity_id are interchangeable aliases. No contradiction found.

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 focused sentence followed by a short, essential alias note. Every word earns its place, with the core purpose front-loaded.

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 simple read-only getter with strong annotations, the description adequately covers the return type and parameter relationship. It is slightly incomplete on usage context relative to sibling tools, but the core calling information is present.

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 0%, so the description carries the parameter burden. It clearly explains that salon_id and entity_id are aliases and that either can be passed, which resolves what would otherwise be ambiguity in the input schema. It does not add format details, but the alias clarification is the key semantic needed.

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 ('Return') and resource ('schema.org page for a salon'), and clarifies the output scope as 'profile + meta'. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_entity or get_details.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_salons, get_entity, or get_details. The alias note helps invocation but not selection.

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