discover_user_business

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Discover and analyze' implies a read-only analysis without side effects, which is reasonably transparent for a discovery tool. However, it does not mention potential limitations such as network dependency, result size, or handling of invalid URLs, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without any filler. Every word serves a functional role, making it highly concise and efficient.

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 has a nested options object and no output schema, so the description should clarify what 'analyze' returns. The description is vague about the output shape or content, and does not mention the optional behaviors like deep search or competitor discovery. However, the schema covers options, and the core purpose is understandable, so it is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters and options. The description adds no additional semantic depth beyond mentioning 'website URLs', which maps directly to the 'urls' parameter. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 specific verbs 'Discover and analyze' with a clear resource 'your business information' and source 'website URLs'. It clearly indicates what the tool does, but does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tool 'discover_business', relying on the 'user' in the name and 'your' in the description to imply a difference.

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 intended use case is implied: when you have website URLs and want to discover business information. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'discover_business' or 'refine_user_business', nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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