Get a privacy setting

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds the context that the tool returns 'current rules' (not historical) and for 'one' key only, which is a behavioral constraint beyond what annotations provide. However, it does not disclose other details like auth requirements or rate limits, so it meets only the baseline for annotated read operations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb 'Return' and immediately states the resource. Every word contributes meaning; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple read-only getter with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states the function, the resource, and the scope. The missing usage guidance and accountId explanation are gaps, but the tool's simplicity and the presence of readOnlyHint mean the description covers the essential context.

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 description mentions 'one privacy key,' which directly maps to the required 'key' parameter and reinforces that only a single key can be queried at a time. However, it does not elaborate on the optional 'accountId' parameter, and with schema description coverage at 0%, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation. The enum in the schema helps, but the description adds limited value beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource as 'current rules for one privacy key.' This distinguishes the tool from its sibling set_privacy, which is a mutating counterpart. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_privacy, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. While a getter's usage is somewhat self-evident, the lack of explicit direction makes it minimally useful for an agent deciding between tools.

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