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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and "Changes nothing" merely restates that. It does add useful behavioral context absent from annotations: the return payload includes id, name and status, which matters because there is no output schema. No mention of pagination, ordering, or auth requirements.

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 short sentences, purpose first, then return shape, then safety. No filler and nothing redundant enough to trim.

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 parameterless read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope and returned fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. The only gap is any guidance on result size/pagination or how to choose this over the single-business sibling.

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 the single 'business' parameter ("Act for this business you manage (its id). Omit to act as yourself.") is fully documented by the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so the 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?

Specific verb+resource ("List the businesses you manage") with an added scope clarification that the result covers clients or other apps. It is clearly distinguishable in spirit from agenta_businesses_get, but the description never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with one, so it falls short of a 5.

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 states what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use guidance, no condition for choosing it over agenta_businesses_get or agenta_customers_list, and no prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'List'.

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