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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool safe, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the scoping to active Space and the ability to override with space_id. It also clarifies the entity definition, which helps set expectations for the data returned. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause earns its place. It defines the domain, explains scoping, and references the alternative approach in a compact, readable manner.

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 simple read-only list tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains the domain concept (business), scoping behavior, and override option. No output schema is present, but the return value is implied by the list action and pagination schema. No additional context is needed.

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 schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage), setting a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the 'space_id' override mechanism and its relationship to set_active_space, which goes beyond the schema's technical description. It also links the pagination parameters to typical list behavior implicitly.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'businesses', with a clarifying definition of what a business is in this context (school, course, SaaS product, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by focusing on the 'business' entity and notes the scoping to active Space, which is a unique aspect.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining that the list is scoped to the active Space and explicitly instructs to 'see set_active_space to switch, or pass space_id to override'. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like get_business, the context is sufficient for a list tool, and the scoping guidance is practical.

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