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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by distinguishing inherited partner settings from exact workspace settings and mentioning approved parent origins, which tells the agent what kind of configuration data it is reading. It stops short of explaining authorization requirements or level-dependent behavior in detail.

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 compact sentence with no wasted clauses, and the core action and scope are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though 'approved parent origins' could be slightly clearer as a returned concept.

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?

The tool has an output schema and annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. However, with three parameters and zero schema descriptions, the missing explanation of campaignId and workspaceId and their relationship to level leaves an agent without enough context to choose parameters 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%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining parameters. It hints at the level enum through 'partner' and 'workspace', but it does not explain campaignId or workspaceId, nor does it say which ID is required or relevant for which level. That leaves two of three parameters unexplained.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('embed settings'), and it distinguishes the two scopes ('inherited partner' vs 'exact workspace'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as embed_events_list, but the resource is distinct enough for an agent to recognize it.

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?

Usage is only implied through the 'inherited partner or exact workspace' phrasing and the required level enum. There is no explicit instruction on when to choose this over sibling tools or when-not to use it, and the conditions tying workspaceId or campaignId to a given level are not stated.

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