get_business_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves data and explains the 'period' argument; it does not mention any side effects, permissions, response format, or whether results are computed live. This is minimal behavioral transparency, though nothing contradicts its read-only nature.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a compact Args section. There is no wasted text; every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

For a simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the core return type (KPIs and alerts) and the aggregation period. It is reasonably complete for an overview tool, though it could define which KPIs or alert types are included. The existence of sibling tools for finer-grained data partially addresses this.

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 provides only a 'period' field with a default and no description (0% coverage). The tool description compensates by explaining the valid values (daily/weekly/monthly) and the default (monthly), adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the exact impact of each period choice.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves KPIs and alerts for the entire business (事業全体のKPIとアラートを取得する), which is a specific verb-resource pair. The scope '事業全体' (whole business) distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_kpis (project-level) and get_member_kpis (member-level).

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 implies usage for business-wide overview rather than project/member-specific detail, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The context that it covers 'the entire business' gives a clear sense of scope, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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