list_business_units

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List all business units' implies a read operation but doesn't specify whether it's paginated, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple list operation, making it easy for an agent 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 tool's low complexity (single optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about return format, pagination behavior, or error handling, which would be needed for full completeness. The simplicity keeps it from being inadequate, but it doesn't fully address what an agent needs to invoke it confidently.

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 100% description coverage (the 'page_size' parameter is documented in the schema), so the baseline score is 3. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, maintaining this baseline without compensating for gaps (none exist here).

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 'List all business units' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('business units'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_business_unit' (singular) or 'list_applications'/'list_projects' (different resources), which would require explicit sibling differentiation for a score of 5.

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. There's no mention of when to use 'list_business_units' versus 'get_business_unit' (singular retrieval), nor any context about prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or relationship to other list tools like 'list_applications'. This leaves the agent without usage context.

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