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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and adds that changes are only possible via the web app, which is the key behavioral trait for this getter. This goes beyond the bare minimum and clarifies side effects.

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 two concise sentences: the first lists the settings in a dense, informative way; the second states the read-only behavior. No redundant words or filler.

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 parameterless getter with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (the complete set of global settings) and its read-only nature. There is no missing information that would hinder an agent from choosing and invoking this tool appropriately.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by listing the fields the settings contain (e.g., default minimum ROI, allowed strategies), giving the agent a sense of what data will be returned without needing an output schema.

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 defines the tool as returning 'the user's global repricer settings' and enumerates the exact fields (enabled, seller ID, default strategy, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_repricer_items, get_repricer_log, and get_repricer_stats, which focus on other aspects of repricing.

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 context is unambiguous: this tool is for reading the global settings, and the note 'changing settings is web-app only' tells the agent this is not for mutations. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but given the explicit resource scope, the usage context is clear enough.

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