Get business profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive context beyond that: it discloses the scope of data exposed (including visibility in the marketplace, booking lead time limits, and trial end date), which helps the agent understand what it will reveal.

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 summary sentence is front-loaded and the second paragraph enumerates the payload efficiently. There is mild redundancy — name, address and contact details appear in both sentences — but no filler or hedging.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so field-by-field. It stops short of formats (time zone representation, hours structure, date format for trial end) and of error/no-profile behavior, which would make it fully 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly makes no claims about inputs and instead spends its words on the return payload, which is the right allocation for a parameterless read.

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 a specific verb ("Reads the business record") with a clearly bounded resource and enumerates the exact fields returned. It implicitly distinguishes itself from narrower siblings like get_business_hours and get_settings by stating the profile record is the superset being read.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase "the business record behind your Booksy profile" — an agent can infer this is the entry point for account-level info rather than hours or settings. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance nor any named alternative tool, which is a real gap given 28 siblings.

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