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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the description's job is to add context beyond that. "Non-secret" is a genuine scope/security disclosure that tells the agent no credentials or sensitive values are returned, which is information annotations do not carry.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or boilerplate. Minor redundancy in using "settings" twice ("account settings ... and settings useful when..."), which slightly muddies the sentence's rhythm but costs no comprehension.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in prose, and with no parameters there is no input contract to document. The description covers the content scope adequately; only the relationship to get_account_statistics is left implicit.

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 and there is no schema-driven parameter meaning the description needs to compensate for. The description correctly frames the tool as a context fetch requiring no input.

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?

Specific verb ("Get") plus a well-defined resource ("account settings, plan capabilities"), and it enumerates the content categories returned. It implicitly separates itself from get_account_statistics (settings vs. metrics) but never names it, so sibling differentiation is left to inference rather than stated.

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 phrase "useful when creating funnels, forms, emails and leads" hints at when an agent would reach for this tool, which is real but implied guidance. There are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or named alternatives among the many sibling list/get tools, so the when-not condition is unstated.

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