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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuine context beyond it: the footer is page-level, what kinds of data it contains, and the exact return shape (a column layout summary followed by raw footer text). It does not say what is returned when no footer has been configured, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler; the what-it-is statement is front-loaded and the return format follows. The Spanish aliases add lookup value at negligible cost.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the description carries the right information — what the footer is and roughly what comes back. Only the empty/unconfigured case and whether the footer is tenant-wide or per-invoice is unaddressed.

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 takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a zero-param tool applies. The description correctly implies no scoping input is needed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the footer text printed at the bottom of every invoice page') and enumerates the content returned (bank details, contact, registry data), which unambiguously separates it from the sibling set_invoice_footer. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening anything else.

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 implied by the read/write pairing with set_invoice_footer, but the description never says when to call this versus sibling getters like get_invoice_defaults or get_invoice_display. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, so the agent must infer the context.

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