bbb_business

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 adds useful context by stating the data is 'credential-free public Better Business Bureau data' and that the profile is 'normalized.' However, it does not disclose failure modes, rate limits, or behavior for invalid or missing profile URLs.

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 action and resource, followed by a dense but purposeful enumeration of return fields. Every sentence adds value, and the credential-free note is a worthwhile addition without being verbose.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the input source, the return content in detail, and the authentication profile. It does not explicitly state that complaints and reviews are handled by separate tools, but the sibling names make that inferable.

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 input schema already documents the only parameter, url, with a clear description specifying it comes from a bbb-search result's url or hq_profile_url. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get a Better Business Bureau business profile') and enumerates the returned fields, which makes its purpose clear. It implicitly differentiates from complaint/review siblings through its focus on profile data (rating, accreditation, years in business), but it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus bbb_business_complaints, bbb_business_reviews, or bbb_business_more_info. The only contextual hint is that the url comes from a bbb-search result, which implies a workflow but does not state selection criteria or exclusions.

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