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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavioral value: extraEmail is redacted (null) unless the caller can manage workspace settings, meaning the response shape depends on caller permissions. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the returned field set, then the permission caveat. No filler, no restatement of the title, and every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the settings fields plus the conditional null on extraEmail. It falls short only on the input side — nothing tells the agent that workspaceId is required or how it relates to workspace_id.

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?

Schema coverage is only 50% and the description mentions no parameters at all — notably not the required workspaceId, nor the brand_id/workspace_id pair or the sparse-schema query override object. With a coverage gap this size, the description needed to explain which identifier to pass and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read the workspace's AI credit alert settings") and enumerates exactly which fields come back: thresholds, extra alerted roles, extra notification address. It does not name the sibling aidelly_update_ai_credit_alert_settings as the mutation counterpart, but "Read-only" signals the read/write split well enough to disambiguate.

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: it is a read of alert settings, so an agent infers it should be called before/alongside aidelly_update_ai_credit_alert_settings, but neither that sibling nor a when-not condition is stated. No prerequisites or call-order guidance is given.

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