hcp_get_business_profile

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: the data is a local file on this machine beside the defaults file, nothing is read from or sent to Housecall Pro or anyone else, and an empty profile is a normal fresh-install state rather than an error. The locality claim sits slightly awkwardly against openWorldHint=true, though it does not contradict the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive hints.

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?

One paragraph, front-loaded with the core read statement before usage context and caveats. Each sentence carries information, though the 'not sent to anyone else' clause is slightly redundant with the preceding 'not read from Housecall Pro' phrasing.

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 output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden and does so: it explains what is returned (sections, missing_sections, confirmation dates) and removes the main ambiguity an agent would have about an empty result. Nothing needed to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 by rule. The description goes further by characterizing the response fields it exposes anyway (missing_sections, per-section last-confirmed dates), which is useful for an otherwise schema-less call.

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?

Specific verb (read) and resource (business profile stored for this installation), plus an enumeration of exactly what the profile holds (shop identity, suppliers, pricing rules, payroll rules, outbound tone). The read verb and 'stored for this installation' scope cleanly separate it from the write sibling hcp_set_business_profile without needing to open either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete usage rule: skills read this before asking setup questions so an interview answered once is never repeated, and it clarifies what a first run must still ask via missing_sections. No explicit when-not or named alternative, so it falls just short of the top band.

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