yelp_business_photos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses Yelp's 'real Android app backend' (a non-obvious scraping mechanism) and explicitly states 'no login, no API key, no cookie required', which is valuable behavioral transparency about authentication. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but for a read-only gallery fetch this is reasonably sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value (backend source, no credentials). No filler 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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects. The description covers what it does and key operational context (backend, credentials). It does not describe the response structure, but for a simple photo gallery fetch, the given info is largely sufficient. A few words on return format would push it to 5, but it is not critical here.

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% (id, limit, offset all have descriptions), so it meets the baseline. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; limit and offset are self-explanatory and the id description is clear. With full schema coverage, a score 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 clearly states the action ('Get Yelp business photos') and the resource ('photo gallery for a Yelp business'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like yelp_business_reviews and yelp_business_menu by focusing on photos.

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 does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use this tool over others. It implies usage for retrieving business photos, and notes the credential-free aspect, but there is no direct guidance such as 'for reviews use yelp_business_reviews'. This is implied through the tool name and description.

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