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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by mapping the returned content (avisos/cuenta/workspace), stating 'true = prendido' semantics, and setting a boundary: connecting calendar, WhatsApp/Telegram, Mi voz, or ClickUp/Jira must be done in-app via how_to_in_app, not through this 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 purpose is front-loaded before the detailed bullet enumeration, and the bullets are tight. The listing is long but each item is informative rather than filler, so the length is justified by the schema-less return surface.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so thoroughly by enumerating the settings categories and their meaning. Minor gap: it never states the return shape/format, but callers get enough to invoke it correctly.

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 100% (workspace_id is documented), which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds real meaning: passing workspace_id also returns that workspace's timezone, automatic day-close, and scheduled digest (with its hour expressed in the person's timezone).

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 identifies the resource (the person's settings, mirroring the Settings screen) and enumerates the three content groups (avisos, cuenta, workspace). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like update_settings or get_user_profile, but the read-oriented framing is 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it notes that workspace settings are additionally returned 'si se pasa workspace_id'. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternatives (e.g., update_settings for changes), leaving the agent to infer context.

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