Get Security State

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — nothing about scope of the account data exposed, permissions required, or that the openWorld hint means it reflects a live external provider state rather than cached config.

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?

A single six-word sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded alongside the verb. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specified rather than genuinely tight.

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?

This is a simple zero-argument read with annotations covering safety and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, for a tool named getSecurityState, saying only 'sign-in settings' leaves the agent unsure whether it returns SSO config, TOTP enrollment, session policy, or all of them — a modest gap for a low-complexity tool.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless schema applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed to identify the account or scope.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('the account's sign-in settings'), so an agent knows this is a read of account-level auth configuration. It does not, however, differentiate itself from neighbors like getMe or getNotificationPreferences, and it narrows the tool's 'security state' framing to just sign-in settings without saying what that covers.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the many sibling read tools (getMe, getNotificationPreferences, getAccountBilling), no stated preconditions, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose.

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