alphaportal_get_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description uses 'Get', which is consistent. The description adds value beyond the annotation by specifying the scope (district-level) and the exact content returned (notification types and features). This contextual detail is not present in the annotation, so the description enhances transparency.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the primary action ('Get the portal feature/visibility settings') and immediately clarifies the content scope in parentheses. No filler words; every part contributes to understanding.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the resource, and the returned content. The only minor gap is not specifying the return format (e.g., object vs. list), but given the low complexity and read-only annotation, this is not critical. A score of 4 reflects that it could be slightly more explicit but is otherwise adequate.

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 coverage is 100% (vacuous). The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately omits any parameter-related information, so a score of 4 is warranted.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('portal feature/visibility settings'), and explicitly states what it returns: which notification types and features are enabled for the district. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_students or get_profile, and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to know which portal features/notifications are enabled for the district. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context 'for this district' adds a scoping clue. No direct sibling for settings exists, so the guidance is adequate though not exhaustive.

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