create_business

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, confirming this is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds that it creates a new entity and includes a copy in the response if successful, which provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose but includes verbose warnings about not fabricating details and asking for clarification, which are generic and could be condensed. It's moderately structured but has some redundancy, reducing efficiency.

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?

Given 6 parameters with 100% schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It explains the tool's purpose and success response but lacks details on failure modes, side effects, or integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement in 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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any specific parameter semantics beyond implying that all information should be gathered before calling. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema carries the burden, but no extra value is provided.

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 clearly states the tool creates a new business entity for a customer in Paddle and explains what business entities are. It distinguishes from individual customers but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_customer or get_business beyond the name. The purpose is specific but lacks direct sibling comparison.

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 provides implied guidance: use when working with a business rather than an individual, and customers don't need a business to purchase. It warns against fabricating details and advises asking for clarification if ambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like create_customer or get_business, nor does it mention prerequisites beyond having information ready.

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