Account settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field list, which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but says nothing about auth requirements, caching, or what openWorld network access implies.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the parenthetical field list earns its place by substituting for a missing output schema. No filler.

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 zero-parameter read with annotations covering the safety profile, listing the returned fields fills the main gap left by the absent output schema. Only minor behavioral context (auth, whether settings are workspace- or tenant-scoped) is missing.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed, and the listed fields read as outputs rather than confusing them with inputs.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('knowledge base account settings') and enumerates the returned fields (name, subdomain, internal KB flag, contact email). This clearly separates it from the article and category siblings, none of which touch account-level configuration.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer it should call this when it needs account-level metadata, but the description never says when to prefer it over, say, search_knowledge_base, nor does it state any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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