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

Annotations already cover write semantics, idempotency, and non-destructiveness; the description adds the authorization context and enumerates the mutable fields. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or full replacement, nor what the response contains, so it adds only modest behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler: the access restriction comes first, then the action and the list of changeable fields. Every phrase earns its place.

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 7 optional params, a nested contacts object, and no output schema, the description plus schema is workable but leaves update semantics and return behavior unspecified. The annotations partly fill the safety profile, but an agent still has to infer partial-update behavior and what the tool returns.

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 only 14%, and the description compensates by mapping plain-language terms to several params: 'public contacts' to contacts, 'automatic confirmation' to auto_confirm, and 'cancellation rules' to late_fee_pct/free_cancel_hours. However, the 'cancellation rules' grouping is ambiguous and business_id is omitted from the description (though the schema documents it).

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 uses a clear verb ('Change') and identifies the resource (business details) plus the specific fields affected: name, description, public contacts, cancellation rules, automatic confirmation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling owner_update_offering, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives a clear precondition ('Only for business owners signed in to Awning') and implies the use case (updating business details), but it never states when not to use it or names alternatives such as owner_update_offering. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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