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

Annotations already cover the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing: it does not describe what the MFA policy payload contains, whether it is workspace-scoped, or any auth/permission requirement. The duplication wastes the only narrative space available.

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?

Short, but the first sentence is printed twice, which is pure waste rather than concision. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the path, and the operation-ID text is machine noise for an agent.

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, a 0%-covered free-form query parameter, and a nested object schema, the description should explain what the MFA policy resource returns or requires. Instead it delegates everything to describe_operation, leaving an agent without enough context to call this confidently.

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 0% and both parameters are untyped free-form objects (query accepts arbitrary keys, params accepts none). The description offers no parameter meaning at all, only a redirect to describe_operation, which partially mitigates but does not document what belongs in the query object.

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 is the title repeated verbatim: "GET /api/settings/mfa-policy. GET /api/settings/mfa-policy." It names a resource path, but conveys no purpose beyond restating the operation ID, and gives no differentiation from the many other get_settings_* siblings.

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 indication of when to call this versus alternatives. The only actionable guidance is a pointer to describe_operation for native request schemas, which is about how to inspect the operation, not when to select it.

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