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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds context about the specific settings returned (e.g., currency, formats, feature flags). This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying the scope of data, though it does not mention response structure or size limits, which are less critical for a zero-parameter GET.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists illustrative fields, and includes the REST endpoint reference. Every word adds value with no 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description provides a helpful list of returned fields, which gives the agent an expectation of the response content. It does not explicitly state the response format (e.g., a company object), but it is adequate for a simple, parameterless read operation.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description effectively communicates that no additional parameters are needed, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 'retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'company/account settings for the authenticated account.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_current_user or get_client by specifying the scope (company/account-level) and listing concrete fields (name, currency, time/date formats, week start, feature flags).

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 by stating it retrieves settings for the authenticated account, which implies use when company-level settings are needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the distinction from siblings is inferable.

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