bbb_business_more_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data source ('separate BBB business profile /more-info sub-page'), the limitation of the sibling endpoint's field, the conditional emptiness of service_areas, and that the data is credential-free and public. It does not cover error or pagination behavior, but it is substantially transparent for a one-parameter read 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 front-loaded with the main purpose and contains several dense, useful distinctions. There is minor redundancy between the first and second sentences, both naming rating reasons and service area, but the extra context about the main-profile versus /more-info difference and the conditional service-area behavior 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what is returned, where it comes from, and how one edge case behaves. It is nearly complete, but it stops short of explicitly describing the shape or field names of the returned rating-reasons and service-area lists, which would have made it fully self-contained.

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 the single url parameter is already well documented in the schema as 'BBB business profile URL, from a bbb-search result's url or hq_profile_url.' The tool description adds useful context about what data the URL should lead to, but it does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Better Business Bureau business's full rating reasons and service area.' It further clarifies the exact deliverable (per-factor 'Reasons for Rating' list and full service-area list) and explicitly distinguishes this tool from bbb_business by explaining what the main-profile rating_reasons field contains versus what this endpoint fetches.

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 gives direct routing guidance: the bbb_business endpoint's rating_reasons field is a generic boilerplate bullet, while this /more-info endpoint fetches the richer business-specific list 'instead.' It also notes that service area is business-conditional, so an agent knows when service_areas may legitimately be empty.

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