authentication_settings_get_settings

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the required Instance Administrator permission and the POST endpoint URL, which adds behavioral context beyond the name. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or explain response structure, pagination, or error behavior. It provides some transparency but leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 mostly efficient, but it contains redundancy: the first sentence 'Get authentication settings for all configured domains' and the second 'Get all the authentication settings for every configured domain in the tenant' essentially restate the same thing. The remaining content (permission, endpoint, example) earns its place. Removing the duplication would make it more concise, so it does not fully meet the 'every sentence earns its place' bar.

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?

Given the low complexity (one empty request_data parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it states the purpose, the required permission, the endpoint path, and provides a concrete request body example. It does not describe the response format, but the purpose statement inherently implies that authentication settings are returned. For a simple getter with no annotations, this is a robust level of completeness.

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 schema shows a single request_data object with no properties and 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It does provide an example request body (`{"request_data": {}}`), which indicates the expected structure and that an empty object is acceptable. However, it does not explain the meaning or purpose of request_data beyond the example, nor does it address the `additionalProperties: true` flexibility. The example helps but the semantic explanation is thin.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'authentication settings' and explicitly scopes to 'all configured domains' and 'every configured domain in the tenant' — a clear, distinct purpose. It differentiates from sibling tools like authentication_settings_update, create, and delete by being the read/get operation, and from get_metadata by targeting full settings rather than metadata.

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 provides a notable usage guideline — the Instance Administrator permission requirement — and includes an example request body. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as authentication_settings_get_metadata or other getter tools, nor does it mention when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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