get_business

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, signaling safety and idempotency. The description adds that the tool raises an error for invalid IDs, which is useful but not extensive. Additional behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, authentication) are absent, but annotations cover the core safety profile.

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?

Three concise sentences: the first clearly states the action, the second provides usage context and return value summary, the third handles an error case. No extraneous information, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 (single required param, read-only, with output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, usage scenario, and error condition. It could mention behavior for aliases that don't exist, but the error note covers non-existent IDs broadly. The presence of sibling tools and output schema compensates for missing edge case details.

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?

Input schema provides thorough descriptions for both parameters (business_id and locale). The tool description mentions 'by its ID or alias', which aligns with the business_id description. With schema coverage effectively 100% (both params described), the description adds no new parameter meaning, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description starts with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full Yelp profile for a specific business'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that search or match. It also enumerates the returned details (hours, photos, address, etc.), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when you already have a business ID from search results or previous calls. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context implies that if you lack an ID, use search or match tools. The error condition for non-existent ID is also noted.

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