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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—it does not say what settings are returned, whether there are rate limits, or any access requirements. With annotations covering safety, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to add value by saying nothing beyond the resource name.

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 short, but brevity is not conciseness when it under-specifies. 'Account settings.' is a fragment lacking any sentence structure or front-loaded actionable information. It does not earn its place because it says almost nothing, similar to the 'Process' calibration example.

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?

While the tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema) and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is incomplete because it does not clearly articulate the tool's function. An agent cannot confidently distinguish this from split_get_profile or split_whoami without additional inference. Given the simplicity, one would expect a minimal but explicit 'Retrieves the account settings'—this falls short.

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 the description is not required to elaborate on parameter semantics. The schema is empty with 100% coverage, and any parameter-related context is unnecessary. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies here.

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 'Account settings.' is a noun phrase that restates the title 'Get settings' without adding an action verb. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like split_update_settings or split_get_profile, leaving the agent to infer that it retrieves settings. This qualifies as a tautology, not a clear purpose statement.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description does not mention split_update_settings, split_get_profile, or split_whoami, nor any conditions, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools. It is entirely absent of usage direction.

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