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 the useful default-business-resolution rule, but says nothing about result shape, result size, or what happens when the caller belongs to multiple businesses.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the fallback rule second. Nothing is padded and nothing repeats the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should at least hint at what a listed business contains and how many come back per page; it does neither. It is adequate to trigger the call but thin for a tool whose entire value is returning IDs the agent will reuse elsewhere.

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 description coverage is 0% and the two parameters (limit, offset) are undocumented, so the description must compensate and does not — pagination is never mentioned. An agent cannot tell from either source that these control page size and paging offset.

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 concrete goal (find your business and its business_id), which is more useful than a bare 'list'. It implicitly separates itself from business_get by framing the tool as the way to discover an ID rather than fetch a known one, though it never names that sibling.

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 second sentence gives real cross-tool guidance: omit business_id elsewhere to fall back to your own business, which tells an agent why this lookup matters. However, it never says when to use this versus business_get or business_set, leaving the sibling choice to inference.

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