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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that by disclosing the data boundary: it will never return identifiers, exact amounts, contacts, PCI/bank data, credentials, or payment actions. No contradiction 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the main deliverable, and the second selectively enumerates exclusions. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers the aggregate nature and the privacy/data boundary well. The only slight gap is that it leaves the distinction from sibling summary tools somewhat implicit, but the negative clause plus annotations make the call safe and effective.

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 only parameter, businessId, is fully documented in the input schema with type, pattern, and tenant-owned semantics. The description weakly echoes 'tenant-owned' but adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 ('Render') and a clear resource: a bounded tenant-owned business snapshot with aggregate counts and a product-catalog preview. The explicit 'Never returns individual...' clause distinguishes it from detail-oriented siblings like get_business and list_products.

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 implies usage through 'bounded tenant-owned business snapshot' and the negative scope ('Never returns individual...'), so an agent can infer it is for high-level aggregates rather than detail lookups. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when/when-not conditions relative to sibling summary tools.

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