get_business_unit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a business system.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves business data. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, the response format, or any behavioral traits like error handling. For a read operation in a business context, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides (100% coverage). The schema fully documents the single required parameter 'business_unit_id' with its type and constraints. The description doesn't clarify the meaning of 'detailed information' or provide examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific business unit', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'list_business_units', which handles listing multiple units rather than retrieving a single one by ID.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_business_units' or 'get_project'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a business unit ID, and doesn't mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for related tasks.

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