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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, so the description adds crucial behavioral details: the configuration value is never returned in full, only a masked preview, and it specifies an authorization condition. This goes beyond structured data and helps agents understand side effects and constraints.

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 a single, information-dense sentence followed by a short permission note. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, avoids redundancy, and every clause adds value—no filler.

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-only getter with no output schema or parameters, the description covers all necessary aspects: what is shown (proxy settings), how it's shown (masked preview), permission requirements, and scope (per connected number). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

With zero parameters, the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool operates across all connected numbers and returns per-number settings, which is essential given the lack of input parameters. Baseline of 4 is appropriate as no param details 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 verb 'Show' and the resource: 'editable-after-connect settings per connected number', specifically the proxy (proxy_url). It distinguishes itself from the sibling config_set by focusing on retrieval and masking, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (to view current proxy settings) and notes the permission requirement ('Owner/admin or the connection owner'). It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like whatsapp_config_set, but the context is sufficient for a read-only getter.

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