Business Setup / Onboarding

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does mention persistence ('I'll remember everything for future sessions'), which is useful, but it fails to disclose critical side effects for a write operation: whether calling it twice overwrites data, whether it is idempotent, or any error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action ('Set up the business profile'), and every clause adds meaning—establishing the tool's role, the context of being first, and the persistence promise. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (13 parameters, required fields) and no output schema, the description provides enough to understand the basic intent but omits important operational details: what happens if the profile already exists, how to update it later, or what the response format is. The full parameter descriptions in the schema help, but the description's vagueness about lifecycle and data handling leaves gaps.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond saying 'tell me about your business,' which is too generic to enhance the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Set up the business profile.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings like update_profile by explicitly positioning it as 'the first step' in onboarding a business, and it clarifies the overarching role ('your in-house tax accountant'), making the intent unmistakable.

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 phrase 'This is the first step' provides a clear contextual signal for when to use the tool (at the beginning of a client relationship). However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives (e.g., 'use update_profile for later changes'), so it falls short of the highest tier but still offers more than just vague implication.

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