Get Remote Config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no note on authentication/prerequisites, no behavior when the key is absent (error vs null), no caching or rate-limit context. 'Gets' only implies read-only semantics that are already obvious from the name.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, appropriately sized for a trivial getter. It is slightly under-specified rather than padded, so it does not earn a 5.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly sufficient, but it omits the not-found behavior and any auth prerequisite — small but real gaps for an agent deciding how to handle the result.

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 100% and the single parameter has a documented max length, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description restates 'by key' without adding format, casing, or namespace conventions for keys.

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 (Gets) and resource (a single remote configuration value) with the lookup key, and the word 'single' implicitly separates it from horizon_get_all_remote_configs. However, it never names that sibling, so the distinction is inferred rather than stated.

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 implied by 'by key' — call this when you need one specific config value — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and the obvious alternative (horizon_get_all_remote_configs) is not mentioned as the bulk-retrieval route.

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