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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing what data is returned (identity, currency, tax profile, next setup step), which matters since there is no output schema — though 'next setup step' remains vague.

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?

A single economical sentence with the verb and returned data front-loaded. The trailing 'or the next setup step' is slightly loose but does not waste much space.

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 low-complexity single-optional-param read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the main returned artifacts. It stops short of explaining what 'next setup step' contains or how multiple aspects are selected, but nothing critical 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?

Single optional parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema itself carries the meaningful guidance about omitting it or getting shared IDs from businesses_list. The description adds nothing about business_id, which is acceptable given the schema does the work.

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 ('Read') and enumerates the resources returned: identity, currency, tax profile, and next setup step. This distinguishes it implicitly from business_set (writes) and businesses_list (enumerates IDs), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus businesses_list or business_set, and no stated preconditions. The only usage hint ('Omit for your own business; use businesses_list for shared business IDs') lives in the schema, not the description, so the description itself gives no routing help.

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