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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the tool is a legacy alias, which suggests deprecation but does not describe side effects, read-only nature, return format, or any limitations. The word 'get' implies a read operation, but that is not explicit. The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's behavior beyond its deprecation status.

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 short sentences. Both sentences earn their place: one defines the tool as a legacy alias, and the other gives a usage directive. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The description is minimal and relies entirely on the agent knowing what get_business does. It does not explain what the tool returns, any prerequisites, or the exact behavior. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves substantial gaps for a new agent trying to select and invoke this tool 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 description provides no information about the business_id parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. The schema itself gives a UUID format and the name is self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter guidance. The tool is simple, but the description offers zero value in explaining the parameter's meaning or usage.

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 states the tool is a legacy alias for get_business, which gives a clear reference point but does not explain what get_business does. It implies the purpose is to retrieve business details, but the agent must infer this from the sibling tool name. This is more specific than a tautology but lacks explicit functional description.

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 states 'Prefer get_business for new clients,' which tells the agent when not to use this tool and names the alternative. It also implies the tool is intended for legacy clients only. This is a clear and actionable usage guideline that distinguishes it from a sibling tool.

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