Set your business details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuine side effect — persistence to a shared profile consumed suite-wide — and the one-time intent ('Call it once, first'). However, it does't state whether a subsequent call with only a subset of fields merges into or overwrites previously stored values, nor does it mention any return/confirmation, both of which matter for a write tool with 15 optional fields.

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 sentences with the scoping claim front-loaded. The content list, persistence fact, and usage directive each earn their place, and there is zero filler. The emphatic 'ONE' may be stylized but it functionally reinforces differentiation from sibling tools.

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 one-time setup call, the description covers scope, contents, persistence, and invocation order, and the rich schema covers parameter details. The remaining gaps are partial-update semantics on re-invocation (merge vs overwrite) and explicit routing relative to docx_business_set; with no output schema there is no hint at the return either.

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 100%, the baseline is therefore 3. All 16 fields are already documented in the schema, including alias relations (vat/tax_rate/vat_rate → default_tax_rate) and the conditional email/phone rules. The description adds only high-level category grouping (name, address, VAT id, bank details, defaults) and no per-parameter meaning.

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 clearly identifies the resource — the single suite-wide business profile — and enumerates its contents (name, address, VAT id, bank details, defaults). It differentiates from siblings by declaring itself 'THE ONE...for the whole suite' and stressing that 'every other server reads' it, which separates it from docx_business_set and prophile_set/prophile_get, though it never naes those alternatives.

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?

'Call it once, first' is an explicit temporal instruction placing this tool before any other invoicing work, and the claim that the profile is what 'every other server reads' tells the agent this is the shared setup entry point. No when-not-to-use guidance or naed alternatives are given, so it doesn't quite reach a 5.

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