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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation, and the description 'Get system configuration' is consistent. The description adds the types of configuration ('company info, user context'), which gives some extra context, but it does not disclose behavior like invalid keys, default values, or response structure. Given the simple read-only nature, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and object, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should at least clarify the valid key values or return behavior. It does not, leaving a critical gap that could cause incorrect usage. The description is not complete enough for the agent to confidently use the tool.

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%, so the description must compensate for explaining the 'key' parameter. The description only hints at possible values ('company info, user context') but does not explicitly define what keys are valid or how the key affects the output. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool with the right key value.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'system configuration', and further specifies 'company info, user context' which distinguishes it from all sibling tools focused on tables, templates, and views. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 that this tool is used to retrieve configuration data, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. Since siblings are all unrelated to config, the usage context is implied but not explicitly guided.

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