businesses_get_business

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of error behavior, return format, or edge cases. Since annotations cover the basic safety, a 2 reflects the minimal extra value provided.

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 brief (one sentence), but brevity is not conciseness here—it lacks substantive information. It is under-specified, providing no structure or key points. While short, it fails to earn its place because it conveys no useful content beyond the tool name.

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 tool's simplicity (single param, no output schema), the description still needs to state what the business object contains or typical usage. It does neither. An agent cannot infer the return structure or any constraints, making it contextually incomplete.

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 schema has one required parameter, businessId, with no description (schema description coverage 0%). The description does not explain what businessId is or any format expectations. With zero coverage and no compensation, the parameter semantics are entirely undocumented.

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 'Get Business' is essentially a restatement of the tool name, providing only a vague verb-resource combination. It does not specify what details are returned or how it differs from siblings like businesses_get_businesses_by_location. There is no scope or additional context, making it a near-tautology.

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 offers zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine when to prefer this over businesses_get_businesses_by_location or other get-related tools.

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