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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: reminders are off by default, lead-day defaults, and the specific missing-account conditions that trigger reminders. It does not cover auth requirements or response shape, but those are less critical here.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the account scope and the settings returned. The content is dense but mostly earns its place; 'Read-only' overlaps the annotation slightly, keeping it just short of ideal.

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 getter with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it enumerates the settings, defaults, and the conditions under which reminders fire. An agent can call it without needing more structured output detail.

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?

There are zero input parameters and the schema is empty, so parameter semantics are not a burden; the baseline is 4. The description's mention of defaults and template placeholders describes returned settings, not inputs.

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 the exact resource: quarter-close reminder settings for a gestoría account, including who sends, lead days, and template. It is clearly a read of current settings, but it never explicitly contrasts with gestoria_cierre_configurar, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the title and 'Read-only'.

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?

It gives context ('For a gestoría account') and marks the tool read-only, implying it is for inspecting current settings. It does not state when to use this instead of gestoria_cierre_configurar or gestoria_cierre_vista_previa, nor any prerequisites.

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