get_business

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It does not explicitly state safety (read-only), authentication needs, or any caveats about the operation. Although 'get' implies a read, the description does not concretely disclose behavioral traits beyond the verb.

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?

A single, lean sentence communicates the essence. It is front-loaded with the resource and action, and no unnecessary words. Every part serves a purpose.

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 param, no output schema, no annotations) so that the description covers the core mapping. If it stops there; however, it leaves out contextual details like how the returned 'full details' are structured or when to prefer this tool over siblings, making it just barely adequate.

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 schema already documents business_id as 'UUID of the business context' with 100% coverage. The description merely repeats that the operation is done by UUID, adding no extra value about format, constraints, or usage. It equals the baseline without enriching the parameter understanding.

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 operation (get), the resource (business context), and disambiguates by 'specific' and 'by UUID'. This distinguishes from list_businesses (broad dataset) and get_active_business (targeted at active context). It is clear what the tool does and how it relates to siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_active_business or list_businesses. No mention of context, exclusions, or preference. An agent has to infer the usage from the name and description alone, which is insufficient for routing.

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