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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context the schema can't convey: that all other tools return currency-free numbers, which risks mislabelling amounts, and that absence of a module can be distinguished from an empty one. It doesn't cover auth requirements or response shape, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the highest-value guidance (the currency warning). The middle sentence is long and slightly run-on, but every clause is load-bearing and nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so thoroughly — enumerating currency, timezone, date format, name, category, and module flags, plus how to interpret missing modules. Nothing needed to call or interpret it is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description instead documents the returned field set (currency_code, timezone, date_format, company_name, org_category, module flags), which is useful but is not parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get this organization's display settings') and enumerates exactly which settings are returned, including the module flags. This is the only settings-reading tool among the siblings, so scope is unambiguous.

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?

Gives an explicit, actionable trigger: 'Call this before presenting any monetary amount.' It also names a second use case (distinguishing an empty module from one the org doesn't have), so the agent knows not just when to call it but why it matters relative to other tools that return bare numbers.

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