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

Beyond the `readOnlyHint` annotation, the description discloses important behavioral details: the legacy-only restriction, the 422 failure case for API-created apps, 401/403 error conditions, and the related enable/disable field `widgetPublicEnabled`. This gives the agent a realistic picture of edge cases and expected failures without needing to call the tool.

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 dense but well-structured with clear labels (LEGACY, Auth, Errors, Related) and front-loads the critical scoping information. Every clause adds operational value: endpoint, legacy constraint, alternative, auth prerequisite, error cases, and related configuration. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the endpoint, the exact eligibility constraint, error codes, auth requirements, and the related update path. The agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and anticipate failures.

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 has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is nothing to document. The description still adds relevant invocation context by specifying the required auth mode. A 4 reflects the no-parameters baseline with useful surrounding setup information.

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 states a specific action ('read the per-app bot widget config'), names the exact resource ('GET /v2/bot/widget'), and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling tool `ethora-widget-embed-snippet`. The 'LEGACY' prefix immediately signals its scope, so an agent can distinguish it from the many bot and widget-related tools.

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 concrete when-to-use conditions: only apps with a legacy aiBot have a config, and API-created apps get a 422. It also provides an explicit alternative (`ethora-widget-embed-snippet`) for the embeddable AI chat widget, plus the required auth sequence (`ethora-app-select` + `ethora-auth-use-app`). This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool versus its alternatives.

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