contribute_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 transparently explains the deduplication behavior (within 100m or matching phone number) and that data will be merged into existing records. It also notes that contributions improve the network. No mention of permissions or destructive actions, but overall transparent from a behavioral standpoint.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and the second explains deduplication behavior. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (10 parameters, nested objects) and no output schema, the description adequately explains what happens upon invocation (create or merge). It doesn't detail return values, but that is acceptable without an output schema. The description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining how phone and lat/lng are used for deduplication. It also frames the purpose of each field in the context of enrichment. This adds value beyond mere schema repetition.

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 dual purpose: contributing a new business or enriching an existing one with missing data. It specifies the resource (AgentWeb businesses) and uses specific verbs ('contribute', 'enrich'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'report_business' (reporting issues) and 'get_business' (retrieval).

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 explicitly says 'Use this whenever you find structured business data that AgentWeb doesn't have yet — every contribution improves the network for all agents.' It explains the deduplication mechanism and when data gets merged, implying when not to worry about duplicates. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but provides sufficient context.

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