business_photo_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the batching capability (up to 20 Photo IDs) and the type of details returned, which is useful. However, it lacks information on rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps in operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and efficiently adds batching details in the second. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and batching behavior but lacks details on response structure, error cases, or operational constraints, which are important for effective tool invocation in the absence of structured metadata.

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%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning batching support, which is already covered in the 'photo_id' schema description. No additional semantic context is provided, aligning with the baseline score 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 action ('Get extra details') and resource ('about a business photo'), specifying the exact information returned (caption, owner name and avatar, and more information). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'business_photos' (which likely lists photos) and 'business_details' (which covers general business info) by focusing on photo-specific metadata.

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 clear context for when to use this tool—when needing detailed metadata for business photos, including batching support. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'business_photos' for basic photo lists), leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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