BusinessOwnershipQuery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It implies both a mutating action ('Create') and a read action ('Query'), but gives no detail on side effects, idempotency, prerequisites, or what happens when invoked. The 'AUS Only' restriction is the only additional behavioral constraint.

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 short to the point of under-specification. It reads as a fragment rather than a complete sentence, and the ambiguous 'Create...and Query' structure obscures meaning. Brevity is not helpful when it sacrifices necessary clarity.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only source of guidance. It fails to explain what UBO is, why a creation step is mentioned, what the tool returns, or how it differs from CreateEntity and SearchEntity. An agent cannot confidently select and invoke this tool based on this text.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter descriptions to supplement, and the description does not mislead about parameters. However, it also does not explain where inputs such as the business entity come from, so it does not exceed baseline.

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 names a specific domain (Business Entity, UBO) and a geographic restriction (AUS Only), but it bundles two verbs—'Create' and 'Query'—without explaining which is the primary operation or how they relate. The tool name suggests query, so the description adds ambiguity rather than resolving it.

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 only usage signal is 'AUS Only', which implies a geographic restriction but gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings like InternationalBusinessSearch, SearchEntity, or CreateEntity. It neither states the intended use case nor excludes alternatives.

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