get_business_context_features

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions the return format (markdown-formatted list) and a ctx argument for logging/error handling, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, safe to call anytime, or free of side effects. The read-only nature is only implied by the 'get' prefix.

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 brief and structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. It front-loads the primary purpose. Minor redundancy exists between the first line and the second sentence ('Get all...' vs 'returns all available...'), but overall it is concise and easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description explains the return type. However, it does not clarify whether the business context must be set before calling, nor does it explain what 'features' means in this context. The misleading ctx parameter also reduces completeness. For a basic metadata getter, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 input schema has zero properties, but the description lists an 'Args: ctx' parameter. This introduces an undocumented parameter that is not present in the schema, potentially misleading the agent into thinking it must supply ctx. This is confusing and detracts from parameter clarity, even though the schema itself is empty.

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's purpose: 'Get all business context features with descriptions.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('business context features'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_business_context by focusing on features/metadata rather than the actual context values.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_business_context or set_business_context. Usage is only implied by the tool name and purpose; there is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent without clear decision-making context.

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