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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a read-only operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that financials are not included, setting expectations about the response scope beyond what the annotation conveys. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the exclusions and alternatives are stated efficiently in the second sentence. Every clause 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists what the response contains, explicitly notes what it excludes, and names the exact sibling tools for related use cases. An agent has enough information to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms no required or optional parameters. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is appropriate here.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving the business's own profile and enumerates its contents (name, contact details, industry, currency, tax rate, plan). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_financial_summary and get_business_overview, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting other definitions.

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 explicit usage guidance: financials are excluded, and the agent is directed to get_financial_summary for financials alone or get_business_overview for both profile and financials in one call. This clearly communicates when to use this tool versus the alternatives.

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