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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the returned data is 'safe metadata' and enumerates omitted fields (contact, legal-entity, address, banking, integration), and constrains results to the authenticated organization's business. This informs the agent about content filtering without contradicting 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero wasted words. The key scoping constraint and field omissions are stated immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 get operation with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, what fields are omitted, and the ownership constraint. No critical information needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 single parameter businessId is fully documented in the schema with a clear description (24-character lowercase hexadecimal id) and a pattern. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('business'), and a clear scope ('one business owned by the authenticated InvoiceVista organization'). It also lists omitted field categories, distinguishing it from other get/list tools and clarifying what the operation returns.

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 this tool is for retrieving a single business's safe metadata, excluding sensitive fields. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., when sensitive fields are needed or when listing all businesses). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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