get_active_business

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It states the operation is a retrieval of the active context, implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose what happens if no active business is set, nor the exact return format. For a simple getter this is adequate but not detailed.

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?

A single sentence that is densely informative, with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and context.

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 zero-parameter getter, the description covers the core purpose and use case. However, since there is no output schema, it could clarify whether 'business context' refers to an ID, an object, or a lightweight reference. Minor gap but mostly complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or redundant parameter info.

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 identifies the action (retrieve), the resource (currently active business context), and its purpose (default for invoice generation). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_businesses and get_business by focusing on the active context.

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 implicitly indicates when to use it (when needing the default business for invoice generation) but does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives like get_business or switch_active_business. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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