Business registered address

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds only a mild precondition ('business account holders'), which hints the call may not apply to personal accounts, but says nothing about failure modes or what is returned. With annotations carrying the load, this is minimal added context.

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 short fragment with no padding, and the scope qualifier leads the sentence. It is efficient, though the colon-fragment construction reads more like a label than a description.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description is the only place the return shape could be hinted, and it is not — the agent does not know the address fields or what happens for a non-business account. For a trivial single-value getter this is adequate but not 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 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?

The description identifies the resource (the company's registered address) and a scope qualifier (business account holders), but it is a noun phrase that largely restates the name/title rather than stating a verb+resource action. It does implicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_business_correspondence_address by naming 'registered', which is a real, if small, differentiating cue.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the obvious alternative, get_business_correspondence_address, nor any stated prerequisite beyond the implicit 'must be a business account holder'. The agent must infer the appropriate context entirely.

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