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

Annotations give only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the brand object governs all generated ad and social copy, the operation is scoped to the active Space, and the full created object is returned. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the side effects and scope.

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 sentences with no filler: first states the action and key fields, second clarifies the brand profile's significance, third covers return and Space scope. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the most important information.

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 covers the essential context needed for invocation: required and optional fields, the brand's cross-cutting effect, Space scoping, and the return type. It doesn't mention error handling or prerequisites, but for a create tool with a comprehensive schema, this is sufficient. The reference to the OpenAPI spec for nested shapes fills remaining gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value for the brand parameter by explaining its role ('governs all generated ad and social copy') and listing its sub-fields (tone dials, voiceNotes, promises, bannedPhrases). For space_id, the description reinforces the schema's override semantics. This is a clear improvement over the structured schema alone.

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 'Register a new business' – a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_business or delete_business. It enumerates the core and optional fields (name, website, description, target groups, SEO keywords, sitelinks, brand profile) and states the return value, making the tool's function unmistakable.

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 clearly implies usage for creating a new business, and it provides concrete guidance on Space scoping: how to switch via set_active_space or override with space_id. However, it does not explicitly say 'use update_business to modify an existing business' or list exclusion criteria, so it falls short of the most explicit level.

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