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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns JSON or a message if no config is set, and implies authentication via 'authenticated customer's'. This adds value beyond the empty schema, though it could be more explicit about read-only behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and lists details concisely. No redundant information is present.

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 no-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it names the resource, enumerates the returned fields, and covers the case where no config exists. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 4. The description lists the fields in the response config, which helps the agent understand expected output structure, but there are no input parameters to explain.

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 fetches the authenticated customer's issue-surfacing digest config, listing specific fields (mode, cron expression, timezone, delivery channel id, lookback days, splitMessages). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_issue_digest_config and other getters.

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 provides clear context that this tool reads the digest config, implying usage when the current configuration needs to be viewed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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