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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the content is internal and must not be exposed to the account's clients, and a missing summary yields an empty field rather than an error.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the confidentiality caveat and the empty-result case. The parenthetical listing summary contents is long but earns its place by telling the agent what to expect.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, where it comes from, the confidentiality constraint, and the empty case. Only the relationship to the write counterpart is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional target_user_id is documented in the schema as admin-only. The description adds nothing about that parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Le o Resumo do negocio da conta') and enumerates what the summary contains (dados do negocio, nota do diagnostico, pontos a melhorar). An agent can distinguish this from set_business_summary by the get/set naming, but the description itself never names that counterpart.

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?

Usage is implied: it is a read of an existing artifact, and the description says explicitly that an empty value is returned when no summary exists, which tells the agent what to do with a null result. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over related tools such as get_account_info or get_icp_config.

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