apple_business_profile

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: discloses per-call cost (5 credits, 3 with muid) and the exact optimization path to reduce it. It pre-empts three common misreads of the response (matched:false, claimed:false vs claimed:null, data_source non-empty meaning Apple ingested from a provider), which are precisely the traps that would cause an agent to misreport results.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then each subsequent sentence handles one distinct concern (existence states, claim states, data_source caveat, cost/optimization). Dense for its length but no sentence is filler, and the gotchas are ordered by likelihood of misinterpretation.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape is covered elsewhere, yet the description still explains how to interpret the ambiguous result fields, plus the billing model and cost tradeoff. An agent has everything needed to call it, interpret the response, and report findings without guessing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: it explains that platform_id from a response is the MUID to pass back as `muid`, and that doing so skips the name-resolution search. The 5→3 credit framing also clarifies muid's practical value, not just its type.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+payload: fetches a business's Apple Maps listing, with the returned fields enumerated (NAP, rating, categories, coordinates). Distinguishes it from the generic business_profile / apple_maps siblings by naming the Apple Business Connect context explicitly.

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?

"Use when auditing Apple Business Connect or checking NAP consistency on Apple" gives a clear triggering condition and the tool's domain. It does not name alternatives (e.g., bing_business_profile for the Bing equivalent, or apple_maps for raw search results), so cross-tool routing is left partly to inference.

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