boond_businessunits_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('get') but does not explicitly say it is a read-only operation, what the response contains, or how errors (e.g., not found) are handled. It is not misleading, but it provides minimal information about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 short sentence, 'Get a business unit by ID', which is direct, front-loaded, and free of unnecessary words. It conveys the essential information efficiently without 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?

The tool is simple: one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects. The description is minimally sufficient for an agent to understand the basic function, but it does not mention what the response contains or any edge cases. For such a low-complexity tool, this is barely adequate; a fuller description could state that it returns the business unit details or mention potential errors.

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 documents 'id' as a required string with minLength 1, and the description references it as 'by ID'. This adds a small amount of semantic value by connecting the parameter to the lookup purpose, but it does not provide examples, format details, or explanation of what the ID refers to. Given the simplicity of the single parameter, the schema already covers most of the meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('business unit') with a clear lookup key ('by ID'). It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from sibling tools like boond_businessunits_search, which implies listing, and boond_businessunits_create/update, which imply mutation. It lacks elaboration on what a business unit is, but that is not essential for a get-by-ID tool.

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 such as boond_businessunits_search (for listing) or boond_businessunits_update (for modifications). It does not mention that this is the correct choice when you have a specific business unit ID, nor does it exclude cases where search would be more appropriate. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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