yelp_place: GET /

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'domain targeting' and lists returned data, but does not state that it is read-only, idempotent, or any rate limits/auth needs. As a fetch operation, it is generally safe, but more explicit assurances would improve transparency.

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 concise (two short paragraphs) and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second lists outputs, third gives use cases. Every sentence adds value, no 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?

No output schema is provided, so the description compensates by listing many return fields (name, address, phone, etc.). It covers key aspects for a detail endpoint, but could mention response structure or potential missing fields. Overall sufficient for most use cases.

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 provides full coverage (100%) for both parameters, with clear descriptions and examples. The description adds 'with domain targeting' but does not provide additional semantic value beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 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 tool fetches a single Yelp business by ID or alias with domain targeting, lists returned fields (name, address, phone, etc.), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying Yelp and domain targeting. The title and verb 'Get' align with the action.

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 provides explicit use cases (enrich leads, monitor competitor, validate hours) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives. However, the context of Yelp-specific data and domain targeting implies when to use it over similar tools like Google Maps or Yellow Pages.

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