get_sales_agent_config

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), it adds 'Requires an API key' and 'Returns the configuration for the authenticated account,' clarifying authentication and scope. It also redundantly states 'changes nothing,' but the new auth/scope context earns credit.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage guidance, and safety/auth/scope. Front-loaded with the main action and not bloated.

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 simple read-only config tool with no params and no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, when to use it, safety, auth, and account scope. No significant gaps.

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?

Tool has zero parameters and an empty schema (100% coverage). Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description reinforces 'takes no parameters' and implies why (account-based), though it doesn't need to explain params that don't exist.

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 starts with 'Fetch the AI sales agent's current settings' – a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the exact fields (enabled, booking link, offer price, reply limits, confidence threshold). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling write tool update_sales_agent_config.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Read this before update_sales_agent_config so you change one field without clobbering the rest, and to check whether the agent is enabled at all before expecting it to act.' This gives direct context and references the alternative tool.

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