List managed businesses

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; 'Changes nothing' largely restates that. The description does add genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the shape of the return (id, name, status) and the cross-tool convention that the returned id is reused as the 'business' parameter elsewhere.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the return shape, then the cross-tool usage pattern. Nothing is padded; the only near-redundant clause ('Changes nothing') is one short sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns and it does so (id, name, status). With zero required parameters, a read-only safety profile in annotations, and no nested structures, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 the single 'business' parameter is already documented in the schema ('Act for this business you manage (its id). Omit to act as yourself.'). The description's note about passing a business id to other tools reinforces that meaning but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('List the businesses you manage') and defines the scope precisely: businesses this account manages, i.e. its clients or other apps. It even names the returned fields (id, name, status), so an agent can distinguish it from agenta_businesses_get or agenta_businesses_create without opening a 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?

It tells the agent what to do with the result: 'Pass a business id as business on any other tool to act for it', establishing this as the discovery entry point. It does not explicitly contrast with agenta_businesses_get or state exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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