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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the field inventory of the response and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior for an unknown id — modest added value over the 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?

Two compact fragments with the resource scope front-loaded and no filler; the endpoint path is a slightly redundant addendum but costs little. Efficient overall, though the field list reads as a raw inventory rather than structured prose.

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 no output schema, the description usefully compensates by listing the returned fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains unstated — pagination is irrelevant here, but error handling and prerequisite id sourcing — is minor for a simple read-by-id tool.

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% and the single business_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its source ('from keypay_list_businesses'). The description's 'by id' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One business by id') and enumerates the fields returned (name, legal name, contact, address, ABN, leave year, standard hours, pay cycle), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. The singular 'one business by id' implicitly contrasts with keypay_list_businesses, but no sibling is named explicitly, which keeps it 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?

Usage is only implied: 'by id' signals this is the single-record lookup once an id is known, versus the list variant. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no precondition (e.g. 'requires an id from keypay_list_businesses'), and no named alternative, so the agent must infer routing.

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