get_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 without help from the text. The description adds that the payload is per-user and mentions two example fields, but with no output schema it does not say whether the result is complete or partial, how it is shaped, or what happens if settings are unset.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and then qualifying it with examples. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

A zero-parameter read is simple, but it lacks an output schema, which makes the description the only source of information about the return value — and 'such as units and time zone' is explicitly non-exhaustive. Adequate to call correctly, but under-specified about what comes back.

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 and the empty object schema confirms it, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to supply. Baseline of 4 applies, since nothing is left ambiguous about the call signature.

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 pairs a specific verb (Get) with a specific resource (the user's settings) and gives concrete examples of the contents (units, time zone). It is clearly distinguishable from update_settings by the verb alone, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from siblings, so it lands just short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent can infer that a settings fetch belongs before settings-dependent work, but that inference comes entirely from the name rather than from any guidance in the description.

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