List Businesses

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the result is scoped to businesses 'this connection can reach' and includes IDs, plus it clarifies that the business argument belongs to other tools, not this one.

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?

Two short sentences carry all necessary information with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the cross-tool note is placed second, making the description easy to scan and act on.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, its scope, and its relationship to every other tool in the set. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the schema or description to document. The description's mention of the optional 'business' argument is clarifying for sibling tools but not a parameter of this tool, matching the 0-parameter 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the Manager businesses this connection can reach, with their ids.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by explaining how every other tool depends on an optional 'business' argument, so an agent can tell this tool enumerates business IDs rather than performing a manager operation.

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 clearly implies this tool is used to discover reachable businesses and their IDs, and it explains the relationship to all other tools via the optional 'business' argument. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state a hard 'when not to use' rule, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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