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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description reinforces this with 'Changes nothing.' and additionally discloses the returned content (name, status, verification state, open invitation), which goes beyond the annotations. It stops short of describing auth requirements or error behavior for an unknown id.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences with the resource and scope stated first. 'Changes nothing' is slightly redundant with the readOnly/destructive annotations but costs almost nothing.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and the annotation set covers the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain around the act-as parameter's practical implications and failure modes.

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%, including the non-obvious act-as 'business' parameter, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax, format, or id-source detail beyond what the schema documents, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show one business you manage... Returns one managed business by id'), which cleanly separates it from the plural sibling agenta_businesses_list and the mutating agenta_businesses_create/invite. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Implies usage ('one business... by id') but never states when to choose this over agenta_businesses_list or what to do if the id is unknown. The act-as parameter's omit-to-act-as-yourself guidance lives in the schema, not the description.

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