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 covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the response structure, the meaning of 'locked' features, and the 'requires' field, which are not evident from annotations. It also notes the access requirement, which is useful. Minor gap: it doesn't mention pagination or error cases, but for a read-only settings tool this is sufficient.

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 compact but information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides a concrete response example and explains key fields. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, response shape, field semantics, and access note. No fluff or repetition.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the response format, field meanings, and access requirements. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the inline response example.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single parameter 'site' is fully documented in the schema. The description adds context by referencing 'site_id from list_sites', which helps the agent understand the expected value. It doesn't need to add more since the schema already covers the parameter.

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 tool's purpose: it retrieves tracking settings, including which features are enabled, which exist, and their byte costs. It distinguishes itself from the sibling update_tracking_settings by explicitly referencing it as the tool for changing settings. The verb 'get' and resource 'tracking settings' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to read tracking settings, and notes that it requires the same access as changing them, referencing update_tracking_settings as the alternative for modifications. This provides clear context and an explicit exclusion, guiding the agent to the correct tool among siblings.

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