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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: an authorization requirement (owner sign-in) and the fact that the pipeline scope is limited to the current month. It does not describe response shape or what happens if the caller is not an owner, but the added auth and scoping details are substantive.

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 access precondition followed by the returned content list. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return content, and it does so by enumerating the profile fields, prices, add-ons, ZIPs, booking page, and monthly pipeline. What is missing is only the differentiation from sibling read tools, which an agent would still have to guess at.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and instead spends its words on what the call returns.

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 a specific verb ('Show') and enumerates the resource set returned: business profile, prices, add-ons, service ZIPs, booking page, and this month's pipeline. That is far more concrete than the title 'My business'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like business_info or read_business_info, leaving ambiguity about which profile-fetching tool to pick.

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 'Owners only (needs sign-in)' clause gives a real precondition for use, which is useful routing context. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus the many sibling business tools, and no statement of when this tool is the wrong choice.

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