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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description correctly adds that it takes no parameters and enumerates return content (scope granted, server version, board_version, readiness states, industry code and proposer). However, it introduces a competing status vocabulary ('ready' vs 'served, still building or failed' vs 'decided or still provisional') without reconciling them, which muddies rather than clarifies behaviour.

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?

The opening sentences are well front-loaded, but the final sentence is a long run-on inventory of return fields separated by commas, and it restates the industry/figures status already mentioned earlier. Meaningful content, but it could be split and trimmed.

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 output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return values, and it covers scope, versioning, readiness states and industry provenance. A few items stay vague ('scope granted', 'why nothing decided it'), but overall it is sufficient to call the tool and interpret the answer.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the explicit 'Takes no parameters' is a helpful confirmation. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 first sentence names a specific resource and payload: the business this connection belongs to, its figure-readiness state, and its industry status. That is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (fetch, search, pointrover_*), though the only explicit differentiation is a cross-connector exclusion ('accounting connector') rather than naming any 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?

'Use this when the assistant is starting work for the owner and needs the business, trade and locations' gives a concrete trigger, and 'Not for the business's own books: invoices, bank, payroll or accounting' gives an explicit when-not. It stops short of pointing at what to call instead of a sibling tool in this server.

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