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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are scoped to businesses "this user can access," and it names the underlying endpoint (GET /business, OData), which explains the filter/orderby dialect.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its key payload fields, followed immediately by the actionable "start here" routing cue. No filler and nothing important buried.

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 enumerates the return fields (id, name, region, legal name, contact details, pay cycle, employee count) and flags the entry-point role. Pagination semantics are left to the schema's top/skip descriptions, which is acceptable but the description could have hinted at paging for a list 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 description coverage is 100%, and each of top/skip/filter/orderby is already documented with defaults, caps and OData examples. The description adds only "(OData)" as dialect context for filter/orderby, so the baseline 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 (List) and resource (payroll businesses this user can access) and enumerates the returned fields, making it clearly distinct from the singular sibling keypay_get_business. An agent can tell at a glance what it yields without opening the 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?

"Start here: most other tools need a business id" gives explicit sequencing guidance that routes the agent to this tool before the many business-id-dependent siblings. It stops short of naming a when-not condition (e.g. use keypay_get_business when the id is already known), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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