Get the chat widget settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. Description aligns with that but adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., no mention of caching or side effects). Baseline score because annotations cover this.

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 concise sentence, no fluff, effectively communicates the full scope of the tool and its limitations (plan-related restrictions).

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?

No output schema exists, but the description provides enough context about what is returned (settings plus plan restrictions). It is complete for a read-only operation with one optional parameter.

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% for the single parameter (website_id). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's existing explanation, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states it reads widget settings for a website, listing specific categories (colours, greeting, position, etc.) and the additional plan/restriction info. Distinguishes from sibling 'update_widget_settings' by using 'Read'.

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?

Describes exactly what the tool does (read all settings) and implicitly contrasts with the update sibling. Does not explicitly state 'use this when you need to fetch settings' but it is obvious from the verb and scope.

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