business_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions batching support, which is useful, but lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key feature (batching). There is no wasted language, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It adequately states the purpose but fails to provide necessary behavioral context, usage guidelines, or details on output. For a tool that likely returns structured business data, the lack of information on response format or error handling makes it insufficient for an agent to use effectively without guesswork.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying that 'business details' include 'emails and social contacts,' which loosely relates to the 'extract_emails_and_contacts' parameter. However, it doesn't provide additional semantics, syntax, or format details for any parameters, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get full business details including emails and social contacts.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('business details'), and scope ('including emails and social contacts'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'search' or 'business_reviews', which might also retrieve business information but with different focuses.

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 provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'Supports batching of up to 20 Business Ids,' which hints at a use case for multiple IDs, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search' or 'business_reviews'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent with little contextual direction.

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