Get User Markup Config

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the ADMIN auth requirement and explains that this markup is configured locally because the upstream only sees the Ashar partner. That architectural context is not available from any structured field.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the ADMIN flag, then a short explanatory paragraph, then Args/Returns. The Args line is mildly redundant against the schema but overall the structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Though there is no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned field and its components (payin_spread_percent, payout_spread_percent). Combined with the ADMIN and local-configuration context, an agent has what it needs to invoke and interpret the call.

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% with a single required tenant_id, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description's Args section merely restates it, adding no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Get the end-user markup ... for a tenant') and clarifies the domain concept (second spread layer on top of the Ashar margin). An agent can distinguish it from ashar_set_user_markup and ashar_get_partner_fee by the read-vs-write and markup-type distinction, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Flags that this is an 'ADMIN operation', which implies a permission gate, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointers to alternative tools (e.g. set_user_markup for changing the value). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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