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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the term 'settings' which suggests it returns configuration information, but provides no extra behavioral context beyond that. However, since annotations cover safety, a 4 is appropriate—the description is consistent and adds a little value.

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, short sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, achieving maximum conciseness.

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's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete. The output schema likely describes the return structure. The only minor gap is not naming any specific settings fields, but that is likely covered by the output schema. Overall, it's adequate.

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 0 parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, which is met.

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 'Get company settings' clearly states a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like get_client or get_account. It is concise and unambiguous, though 'settings' is slightly vague compared to 'profile' in the title.

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 it is for reading company-level settings, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with related tools like get_client or get_branding. In a large sibling list, some explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives would help.

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