get_business

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the batch capability and the type of details returned, but lacks information on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies read). This leaves gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 two sentences: the first front-loaded with the purpose and key details, the second specifying the parameter usage. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and batch usage but lacks details on return format, error cases, or behavioral traits like rate limits. For a tool with 1 parameter and high schema coverage, it's minimally adequate but could be more complete to compensate for missing structured data.

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 schema already documents the 'id' parameter as comma-separated IDs for batch. The description adds minimal value by restating this in natural language ('Pass comma-separated IDs for batch'), but doesn't provide additional semantics like ID format or constraints 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for one or more businesses'), and lists specific data fields (address, phone, website, etc.) that distinguish it from siblings like search_businesses (likely for searching) or get_rankings (likely for rankings). It explicitly handles batch operations with comma-separated IDs.

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 clear context for when to use it ('for one or more businesses' and 'batch'), implying it's for retrieving details of known IDs rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like search_businesses for unknown businesses, though the distinction is reasonably inferable.

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