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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds meaningful non-annotation context that secrets are never returned, which matters for an agent deciding whether it needs this call at all. It stops short of describing what the settings payload contains, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the safety note and the routing hint. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-optional-param read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: purpose, secret behavior, and alternative are all covered. The only minor gap is not sketching what configuration fields are returned, which the agent might want when deciding to call it.

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 description coverage is 100% and both params (botId, projectApiKey) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, but none 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Return the project's BunnyShell settings") and expands the EaaS acronym so an agent unfamiliar with the term still understands the target. It also names the sibling path it supersedes, so the tool is unambiguous against ephemeral-environment.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: "prefer this over ephemeral-environment action=CONFIG," which is a direct when-to-use-vs-alternative instruction rather than implied usage. Combined with the stated scope, there is little left to infer about selection.

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