APIbase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately documents the return payload structure by listing specific data fields (competitors, value propositions, etc.), but lacks operational details such as caching behavior, rate limits, or error states when prerequisites are unmet.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action verb and immediately lists the specific data categories returned. There is no redundant or wasteful text; every clause conveys essential information about the tool's output.

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 required string parameter) and lack of output schema, the description appropriately compensates by detailing the specific business data fields returned. It sufficiently covers the tool's scope, though it could benefit from mentioning error conditions or data freshness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'website_domain' parameter, including the mip_status prerequisite. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline score is 3. The description text adds no further parameter semantics, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 ('Get') and resource ('MIP business analysis results'), and enumerates the exact data fields returned (business name, category, location, competitors, value propositions, market surface data). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'aipush.analysis.visibility' or clarify when to choose profile analysis over other AIPush analysis tools.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aipush.analysis.visibility' or 'aipush.market.report'. While the schema parameter description notes the prerequisite that mip_status must be 'ready', this critical usage constraint is absent from the main description text.

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