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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's non-mutating safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by listing the returned setting fields, but it does not discuss authentication, errors, or other behavioral traits. This is consistent with the annotation, so no contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It states the action first, then lists the specific pieces of information returned, making it easy to scan and parse.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and consistent annotations, this description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It names the resource and the exact returned attributes, leaving no meaningful gap for this complexity level.

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, so the input schema is empty and the description need not explain parameter usage. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is adequate; the description's focus on return content is reasonable and adds no unnecessary parameter detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('email-alert settings') and enumerates exactly what data is returned: enabled state, cadence, fastest allowed cadence, and cadence options. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling update_alert_settings.

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 clearly establishes that this tool retrieves alert settings, and the sibling name update_alert_settings provides an obvious contrast for mutation. It does not explicitly say 'use update_alert_settings to modify settings,' but the read-only retrieval context is unambiguous.

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