support_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'Get information' is consistent with these. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the nature of the returned data. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate as it adds minimal value beyond the annotations.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters. Every word contributes to conveying the core purpose.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is the sole source of information about what the tool returns. The term 'configuration' is broad and does not clarify what specific settings or data will be provided, which could leave an agent uncertain about whether this tool answers a particular question. Given the openWorldHint, it may be acceptable, but the description lacks enough detail to be fully complete.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to describe. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not introduce any ambiguity regarding parameters.

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 action (Get) and the resource (information about Zendesk Support configuration), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on specific entities like tickets or users. However, it does not specify what aspects of configuration are included, making it somewhat vague. It is not a tautology and conveys a distinct purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it pertains to global configuration or how it relates to other support tools. An agent would need to infer its applicability from the tool name and context, which is insufficient.

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