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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type (JSON string) but does not explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation, note any permission requirements, or indicate potential side effects or performance considerations. The verb 'Get' implies read-only but lacks explicit assurance.

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 only two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The return-type note is brief and adds minimal value without wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and includes an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It clarifies the scope of 'global state' to include authentication and application domain, but could be slightly more explicit about standing as a composite of the specialized getters.

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 schema fully covers the parameter surface. The description appropriately does not add parameter details, and no further semantics are 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?

The description clearly states the tool gets the 'global state' and specifies the included domains ('authentication and application domain'). It distinguishes itself from narrower siblings like get_auth_status and get_authentication_config, which focus on individual aspects.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention that it is a broader aggregate getter, nor does it offer any comparison or exclusion criteria. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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