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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the tokens are computed values that are stored nowhere, and the full output is roughly 30KB — useful expectations for an agent deciding whether to page through output. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: the first states the output, the second gives use case and routing, the third explains the parameter. The most decision-relevant information (what it returns and when to use it) is front-loaded, and the sibling routing is compact.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is complete: it states the return content, the size implication, the section scoping, and the write-tool alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the enum values each carry detailed explanations of what they return, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds modest value beyond that: clarifying the default (all) and framing section as a way to avoid the full 30KB payload, which is useful but does not change the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 states a specific verb (read/describe) and resource (the locator configuration), and enumerates exactly what is returned: behaviour settings, brand tokens, result-card layouts, and visitor-facing wording, each with the schema beside it. It also distinguishes itself from the write sibling propose_configuration, so an agent can differentiate the tools without opening schemas.

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 description explicitly says when to use this tool ('Use it to read what is set now') and when not to ('To write a change you do not need it'), naming propose_configuration as the alternative and explaining why (its input schema lists every key and allowed value). It also gives guidance for the optional section parameter as a way to scope the read.

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