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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing what comes back — live availability, what the business does, and where it is reviewed — in the absence of an output schema. It stays silent on auth, rate limits, and error behavior for unknown ids, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb, the resource, and the source of the id before listing the record contents. Every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the resource and previews the returned fields, compensating for the missing output schema. Only edge-case behavior (unknown id, availability freshness semantics) is left unstated.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the same fact the schema gives (the id must come from `search`) without adding format details or behavior for invalid/missing ids.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('the full Speedi record for one business'), plus scopes it to a single id. It implicitly separates itself from `search` by sourcing the id from search results, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like `check_provider_availability` or `find_available_providers`, which also touch availability.

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 'by the id returned from `search`' gives an implied workflow: call `search` first, then `fetch` for details. There is no explicit statement of when not to use this tool or why an agent would pick it over `find_available_providers` or `check_provider_availability`.

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