bbb_business_complaints

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact output structure, the empty-result behavior (total_complaints 0 and empty complaints list is normal, not an error), and that the data is credential-free public BBB data. It does not cover invalid-URL errors or pagination, but the disclosed traits are material and accurate.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, and the second expands with return fields, edge-case behavior, and auth status. Every clause earns its place.

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 a single parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it names the return fields, the no-complaint case, and the public nature of the data. Minor gaps (pagination, invalid-URL errors) are not critical for this simple retrieval tool.

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% – the url parameter is already described in the schema as coming from a bbb-search result's url or hq_profile_url. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 opens with 'Get a Better Business Bureau business's complaint history' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. It then enumerates the exact return fields (total complaint count, complaints closed in the last 12 months, per-complaint detail), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like bbb_business_reviews and bbb_scamtracker_*.

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 clarifies what the tool returns and notes that the data is credential-free, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as bbb_business_reviews or bbb_business_more_info. The usage context is implied by the complaint-specific wording rather than stated as a comparison or exclusion.

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