edf_get_configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. 'Does not change settings' merely restates destructiveHint=false and adds no new behavioral detail such as required auth, whether the returned config is live or cached, or any scoping constraints. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the optional-parameter and safety notes. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 one-optional-parameter config reader with no output schema, the description covers the action, the optional narrowing argument, and the fact that nothing is mutated. It could hint at the shape of the returned configuration, but with no output schema an agent would not be much better served by prose about the response.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'Optionally inspect one TLD' explains both the meaning and the optionality of the sole `tld` parameter. It does not restate the schema's lowercase pattern or length bound, but the description meaningfully exceeds the bare 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: 'Read the EDF native DNS and WHOIS configuration,' with a secondary scope note about inspecting one TLD. An agent can distinguish it from the lookup siblings (edf_dns_lookup, edf_whois_lookup) by the word 'configuration,' though the description never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation requires inference.

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?

'Optionally inspect one TLD' gives implied usage for the single parameter, telling the agent the call is valid with no argument. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of how this differs from the DNS/WHOIS lookup siblings, which is the most likely routing confusion for an agent.

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