getDcpInfo

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: pre-authorization by account manager, a 10 req/s rate limit, an array return shape, the requirement that DCP be enabled, and the meaning of an empty result. This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, with the core purpose first, followed by constraints and an agent hint. The main redundancy is that the return value is described twice ('Returns DCP status and time window' and later 'Returns an array of product-level DCP configs'), but this repetition is minor and does not hurt usability.

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?

Given no output schema and zero parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return shape, preconditions, rate limiting, and empty-result meaning. It covers all of these, making it complete for a low-complexity read-only query tool.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly states 'No parameters needed,' which removes any ambiguity about calling the tool without arguments. Since there are no parameters, there is no additional semantic burden to carry.

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 states a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('Disconnection Protection (DCP) configuration'), and clearly identifies what is returned: DCP status and time window per product type. This distinguishes it from related siblings like setDcp and subscribeDcp, which imply mutation or subscription behavior.

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 gives clear context: use this to check DCP settings, it requires no parameters, and it only works for accounts where DCP is enabled by an account manager. It does not explicitly contrast with setDcp or subscribeDcp, but the usage hint is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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