get_business_info

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) set a baseline. The description adds valuable context: slug echoing, instruction to ignore UI-only fields, and assurance of availability. No contradictions detected.

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 structured and mostly concise, but a few sentences (e.g., listing every data field) could be tightened. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides usage tips.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description covers all necessary details: what data is returned, how to use slug, and which fields to ignore. It is fully adequate for an AI agent.

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%. The schema already explains the slug parameter well ('Copy it verbatim'), and the tool description reinforces this. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Get business information including name, type, service area, contact details, working hours, supported languages, enabled features, and a profile image.' It uses specific verbs ('get') and resources ('business information'), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on booking, availability, or pricing.

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 advises using 'attributeDetails' to reason about fit and notes that the response echoes the slug for reuse. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives to other info-gathering tools, missing an opportunity to guide agent decision-making.

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