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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description still adds value by disclosing credential-scoping semantics ('the credentials act for'), flagging the call as 'cheap', and listing the returned attributes in the absence of an output schema. It does not describe failure behavior when credentials are invalid, which is the main remaining 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?

Three compact clauses, front-loaded with the verb+resource, then the return fields, then the use case, then the GraphQL mapping. No sentence is filler and the GraphQL note gives implementation traceability cheaply.

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 zero-param, read-only tool with no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the credential scoping, so an agent can call it without further research. It is short of perfect only in not stating what happens on auth failure, which matters for a tool explicitly recommended as a setup check.

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, which sets the baseline at 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed — it operates purely off the credentials in context — so nothing further is required here.

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 verb and resource ('Fetch the Boulevard business') and disambiguates scope as 'the business the credentials act for', which distinguishes it from get_client, get_order, get_appointment and the list_* siblings. It even enumerates the returned fields (name, timezone, address, phone, website), so an agent knows exactly what it gets without opening anything else.

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?

'A cheap way to confirm the setup works' gives a concrete when-to-use scenario (credential/setup verification), which is a clear call condition. It stops short of any when-not guidance or naming an alternative, though no sibling competes for the same resource, so the routing risk is low.

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