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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere and the '[read-only]' tag is largely redundant. The description does add the underlying API endpoint (GET /api/v2/frames/settings), which is mild operational context, but reveals nothing about the response shape or whether results are per-account/per-brand. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the safety tag and then the substantive meaning, with the endpoint tucked into a parenthetical. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys what concept is returned (per-platform auto-frame selection) and the API it wraps. It does not say whether the settings are global or scoped to a brand/account, which is the one gap an agent might care about, but overall it is sufficient to call 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 names a specific resource and scope: it returns which frame each platform's images get automatically, clarifying it is not a generic frame lookup. It distinguishes itself implicitly from get_frame (a single frame) and update_frame_settings (the mutating counterpart). The verb 'get' appears only in the name, so the phrasing is descriptive rather than a clean verb+object, but an agent can still tell what it retrieves.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus siblings like get_frame or list_frames. The trigger conditions ('when a post is published or scheduled') describe the domain behavior of the setting, not when the agent should invoke the tool. The natural alternative, update_frame_settings, is never referenced.

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