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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by explicitly stating auth requirements (app-token mode or B2B with appId) and likely errors (401/403, 404). It does not describe output shape, but for a single-resource config read, the listed fields provide sufficient expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states what the tool reads, then auth/error/related information follow in short, scannable sentences. Every sentence earns its place without filler or repetition.

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 simple read tool with one optional parameteramenities, the description covers function, auth modes, error conditions, and related mutation tool. No output schema exists, but the description enumerates expected response contents. An agent has everything necessary to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 input schema already documents appId thoroughly, including format, mode-specific requirements, and the 'ignored in app-token mode' behavior. The description's Auth line largely repeats the schema's parameter semantics rather than adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and no additional parameter detail 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the exact resource ('current AI bot configuration for an app'), then enumerates the key config fields: status, trigger, prompt, greeting, LLM provider/model, RAG settings, and widget config. It also distinguishes from the update sibling by naming ethora-bot-update-v2 as the related mutation tool, so an agent can immediately understand this is the read counterpart.

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 gives clear contextual guidance on auth modes: app-token mode requires no appId, while B2B mode requires an explicit appId. It also points to ethora-bot-update-v2 when a configuration change is needed)Skip(). However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with other potentially similar read tools like ethora-agents-get-v2, so some ambiguity remains about when exactly to prefer this over related-but-different tools.

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