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 behavioral burden, and it mostly fails to: nothing about authentication or API key requirements, rate limits, or what the scraped response contains. The only behavioral detail, the 39-id per-request cap, also appears in the schema rather than being added by the description.

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 wording is front-loaded with the action, but the text is cut off mid-clause and contains a dangling escaped quote, which reads as broken rather than concise. A malformed sentence forces the agent to guess at intended meaning instead of extracting it cleanly.

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 scraping tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum say what comes back and whether the request is billable or rate-limited; it says neither. The truncation also means whatever guidance the final sentence intended to convey is lost entirely.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including the 39-id limit and an example id list, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a sample Yelp URL, which duplicates the schema's own example rather than clarifying constraints such as whether business_url and business_ids can be combined.

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 names a verb and resource ('Scrape By Yelp URL') and specifies the two input modes (Yelp URL or business ids), so the core purpose is inferable. However, the text is truncated mid-sentence ('You can get these business urls from the "'), leaving the intent garbled, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings such as business_url_to_id or reviews.

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?

It hints at a workflow by telling the agent where the inputs come from ('business ids found from /search endpoint'), which implies when to call it. It offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not explain when to use business_url versus business_ids, the two mutually ambiguous inputs for this same tool.

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