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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds that it never returns secret values, which is notable behavioral context (privacy guarantee), but does not elaborate on partial existence or error behavior if not authenticated. That extra detail helps but is not rich enough for a higher score.

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, focused sentence that packs essential details: what is returned (settings, credential usage), what's excluded (secret values), and a key prerequisite (authentication). No fluff, front-loaded with the resource and access scope.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description still provides enough for an agent to invoke correctly: it knows what data the tool returns, that it's read-only (via annotations), and that authentication is required. It could mention what happens if not authenticated, but that's a minor gap. Overall complete for a parameterless read.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. However, it clarifies the scope of the resource ('the authenticated user's Meta Council settings'), which adds meaning beyond the schema. A 4 is appropriate because it compensates for the absence of parameter documentation with clarity on what is being fetched.

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 that it gets the authenticated user's Meta Council settings, specifying the resource (settings) and key content (preferred model, plan tier, credential info). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on settings visibility, though it doesn't explicitly compare to a specific sibling alternative, so it's not a 5.

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 implies a read operation for the authenticated user's configuration. It mentions authentication as a prerequisite, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other 'get_' tools (e.g., get_session or get_workspace_metrics). Contextual usage is implied rather than explicit, so it's adequate but not fully guiding.

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