get_business_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a read operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if the ID is not found) or any permissions required. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the literal 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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and the description is appropriately sized for such a simple retrieval operation.

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 'get by ID' operation, the description covers the core intent, and there is no output schema to require return-value documentation. However, with no annotations and half the parameters undocumented, the agent lacks information about required permissions, error cases, or the purpose of ad_account_id. The description is adequate but leaves noticeable gaps for a complete picture.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 50%, with business_agent_id described as 'Business agent ID.' (essentially redundant with the parameter name) and ad_account_id left completely undocumented. The tool description merely says 'by ID' without clarifying which parameter is which or how they relate. It adds no meaning beyond the input schema and does not compensate for the missing ad_account_id documentation.

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 'Get a Business Agent by ID' uses a specific verb (Get), a clear resource (Business Agent), and the identifying condition (by ID). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_business_agents, create_business_agent, or update_business_agent, which serve different purposes.

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 usage is implied by the tool name and description: use this when you have a specific business_agent_id and need a single agent. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of list_business_agents or other alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions. Only implied usage, not explicit.

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