Get Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns 'readable text', lists the specific categories of information, and notes that it is free and unauthenticated. These details go beyond the annotations and set proper expectations without contradicting any structured data.

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 two sentences, each packed with specific, non-redundant information. It front-loads the core function and content list, then adds usage guidance. No filler or repetition; every word earns its place.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and straightforward read-only behavior, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool returns, that it is free, and when to call it. The explicit list of returned items substitutes for an output schema, making the tool's behavior predictable.

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 has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed. It sufficiently explains what the returned configuration includes, which is the relevant semantic info.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('BizVerify's public configuration'). It enumerates the exact contents (jurisdictions, credit costs, free-tier allowance, packages, feature flags, links), making it distinct from siblings like list_jurisdictions. The 'Call this first' phrase anchors its role in the workflow.

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 explicitly says to call this first to discover supported jurisdictions and costs before verifying, which gives clear timing and context. It also notes it is free and requires no authentication. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_jurisdictions or mention when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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