business_photos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the cursor parameter), error conditions, or what format/type of photos are returned. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to properly use this tool.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the core purpose without any unnecessary elaboration. Every word serves a clear purpose: verb (Get), resource (business photos), and key identifier (by Business Id). There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (photo objects, URLs, metadata), doesn't explain the relationship between parameters like 'cursor' and 'limit' for pagination, and provides no context about error handling or typical use cases. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively based solely on this description.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3. The description doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide usage examples that would add value beyond the schema.

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') and resource ('business photos') with a specific identifier ('by Business Id'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'business_photo_details' or 'business_details', which likely provide related but different functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'business_photo_details' and 'business_details' available, there's no indication of when this photo retrieval tool is appropriate versus those other tools that might provide more detailed or different photo-related information.

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