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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds two useful facts beyond that: all three automations default to off unless enabled, and a ready-to-read summary is available in `say` — genuinely helpful output context, though nothing about freshness or scope limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource, then the three settings in one sentence, then the default-state caveat and the `say` pointer. It is slightly longer than strictly needed for a settings read, but each sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated.

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 output schema, the description has to carry return-value context, and it does by naming the three returned settings and the `say` summary field. An agent has enough to call the tool and interpret the result; only cross-sibling disambiguation 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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema is empty with additionalProperties false, matching the description's implication of a no-argument fetch.

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?

It names a specific verb (Shows) and resource (the employer's own Screening Autopilot settings) and enumerates the three settings returned, so the agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like autopilot_settings or autopilot_status, which the agent must resolve elsewhere.

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 only implied: 'the employer's own' signals the employer-side reading use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to the sibling that mutates these values (set_screening_autopilot). The agent can infer the read context but gets no routing help.

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