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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's added value is disclosing the return shape, notably that action_path is the dashboard page for the suggested next action, which tells the agent the output is meant to drive a follow-up UI step. It says nothing about result ordering, empty-business cases, or pagination.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource and its scope front-loaded and the returned fields enumerated after it. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 tool with no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden well by naming the three key fields. Only edge-case behavior (no businesses yet, ordering) is left unaddressed.

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 takes no parameters, and the description correctly implies the scope is fixed to the signed-in user with no filtering knobs. There is nothing more the description could add on this dimension.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the signed-in user's businesses') and even enumerates the payload (stage, next action, action_path), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It stops short of naming the nearest sibling, get_registration_state, which could otherwise look like a single-business variant of this call.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'signed-in user's businesses' — no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_registration_state or get_action_status for drilling into a single registration. An agent can infer the entry-point role, but nothing confirms it.

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