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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact data returned (saved invoice defaults) and the scope (connected workspace), and notes that some fields are optional. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond the hints.

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 a single sentence, efficiently front-loaded with the core action ('Get saved invoice defaults') followed by a concise list of included fields. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to clarity.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete for an agent to call it correctly. It states what the tool retrieves and its scope. No additional information is needed for invocation; the output schema handles return structure.

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, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters, as there are none, and it correctly focuses on the output fields instead.

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 states the tool's purpose: retrieving saved invoice defaults for the connected workspace. It lists specific fields (company name, currency, invoice prefix, numbering format, default due date, sender info, payment terms), making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_client or get_invoice. The verb 'Get' and resource 'settings' are precise.

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 provides context ('for the connected workspace') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it is for retrieving defaults, likely before invoice creation, but does not name update_settings or other get tools as alternatives, nor does it exclude scenarios. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance.

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