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

With readOnlyHint already declaring safety, the description adds useful behavioral context: partial answers are acceptable, unanswered questions are treated conservatively, and the response includes unanswered status and its meaning. This goes beyond what the annotation provides.

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 description is compact and front-loads the returned content before covering partial-answer behavior and conservative treatment. The phrase 'what that means' is slightly vague, but the following clause clarifies it, keeping the description efficient overall.

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 read-only retrieval tool with one optional schema-documented parameter and no output schema, the description supplies enough detail about return contents, answer shapes, current answers, and unanswered-question semantics. Nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single optional company parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

The description states exactly what the tool returns: the five business-profile questions, each with the answer shape used by set_business_profile and the current answer, plus unanswered status and implications. This distinguishes it clearly from the sibling write tool set_business_profile.

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 description implies its use case — gathering questions to ask the business owner and checking current answers — and references set_business_profile as the write counterpart. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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