List business units

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful return-content context (identifier and bilingual names) but does not describe pagination behavior or any operational traits beyond what annotations and schema already cover.

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 with no filler: the first states the primary function and return fields, the second states the practical purpose. All content earns its place and the key action verb is front-loaded.

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 tool with clear annotations and fully documented pagination parameters, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns (identifier and bilingual names), why to use it (identifier resolution), and the structured schema already covers pagination.

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%, so cursor and pageSize are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information, which is acceptable because the schema carries that burden.

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 ('Lists'), a specific resource ('business units'), and the exact content returned (identifier plus English and Arabic names). The added use-case sentence ('resolve names to stable identifiers before filtering other tools') gives it a distinct identity among the many sibling list tools, so an agent can tell it apart.

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 gives a clear, explicit purpose: use business-unit identifiers to resolve names before filtering other tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but it provides enough contextual guidance to select it for identifier resolution.

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