businesses_create_business

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what the name already implies. Annotations declare readOnlyHint false (a write operation) and idempotentHint false, but the description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation requires a specific location context. With zero annotation richness, the description carries the full burden and fails entirely.

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?

The description is extremely short (three words), which is concise but not effective. It lacks any structure or elaboration that could guide the agent. This is under-specification, not deliberate conciseness; there is zero information content beyond the tool's name.

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 tool with 11 parameters, a write operation, and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. It gives no indication of required fields, the nature of the created entity, or the expected response. An agent has no way to call this tool correctly or understand its purpose without extensive external context.

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 9% (only locationId has a description). The tool description provides no parameter semantics whatsoever—it does not explain what 'name', 'email', 'address', etc. are for, nor does it mention that 'name' is required. It completely fails to compensate for the sparse schema coverage.

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 'Create Business' is a pure tautology—it simply restates the tool name without adding any meaning. It does not explain what a 'business' record is, what fields it involves, or how it differs from sibling tools like businesses_update_business or businesses_get_business. An agent cannot distinguish this from other business-related operations based on this description alone.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist (e.g., a locationId), or when alternatives like businesses_update_business would be more appropriate. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or selection criteria, leaving the agent without any usage direction.

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