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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses that the signing secret is not returned to API keys, that the response reports webhook.secret_set instead, where the secret is visible, and the authentication prerequisite. This goes well beyond a generic 'Get settings'.

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 front-loaded and organized into purpose, security behavior, and access. It is slightly lengthy with environment-specific authentication instructions, but every sentence adds useful information.

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 getter with no output schema, the description gives the agent everything needed: the returned categories, the sensitive-secret behavior, and the prerequisite/auth path. Nothing important is missing.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter semantics burden; the baseline 4 applies. The description appropriately spends no space on parameters.

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 opening phrase 'Get account settings' names a specific verb and resource, and the description enumerates exactly what is included: branding fields, webhook endpoint and event subscriptions, and default proof lifetime. This is sufficient to distinguish it from settings-adjacent siblings like update_settings, get_webhook_stats, and get_webhook_delivery.

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 clear access context: requires a Proof account, tells the agent to authenticate then call again, and explicitly states that start_login does NOT open this tool. It stops short of a full when-to-use vs alternatives mapping for the whole tool, though it does point to update_settings and the dashboard as the only places the signing secret is visible.

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