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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds account-level scoping ('in the account') and the HTTP GET endpoint, which clarifies the operation's scope and method, but it does not disclose response format or pagination behavior beyond what the schema 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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a clarifying parenthetical and the endpoint. Every element earns its place; no filler.

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 simple read-only list operation with only two optional parameters, the description plus schema and annotations provide sufficient context. The readOnlyHint covers safety, the schema documents pagination, and the description clarifies the resource scope. No critical gap prevents an agent from invoking it correctly.

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%, with both 'page' and 'per_page' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('businesses'), and clarifies that these are practice locations within the account. The inclusion of the endpoint 'GET /businesses' removes ambiguity, and since no sibling tool targets businesses, it is clearly distinguishable.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are alternatives mentioned. The usage is only implied by the name and description (e.g., when a list of businesses is needed). There are no exclusions or conditions.

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