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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest and does so well: it discloses the access restriction ('Only for the Awning team') and explains the return payload, including that the link resolves to the private preview when a business is not live. It does not mention pagination or result-count limits, which is the only gap.

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?

Opens with the audience restriction, then the payload, then the filters, then the alternative – a sensible front-loaded order with no filler. The status parenthetical is a little dense but each element maps to real information.

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 only two optional parameters, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: who may call it, what comes back, how to filter, and which sibling handles the adjacent case.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description only restates the filter intent. It also introduces a mild mismatch: the status list mentions 'needs changes', which has no counterpart in the enum (draft, review, published, suspended), so the mapping is not fully reliable.

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 resource (every business on Awning) together with the exact fields returned: status, owner, and link. The public-page-versus-private-preview distinction further pins down what the tool yields, so an agent can distinguish it from get_business or search_businesses without opening a schema.

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?

Gives two concrete use cases (find a business by name, or enumerate every business in a given state) and names the boundary case: applications awaiting a decision belong to op_applications. This is explicit when-to-use plus a named alternative, leaving little to infer.

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