alphaportal_get_settings

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping context (settings are per-district, covering notification types and enabled features), but does not mention return shape, caching, or any auth/permission requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the clarifying parenthetical earns its place by telling the agent what the opaque word 'settings' actually contains.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys both the source and nature of the data. It stops short of describing the return structure, but the parenthetical gives enough for correct invocation and interpretation.

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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies the call is parameterless by scoping to 'this district' implicitly through context rather than an argument.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (portal feature/visibility settings), and the parenthetical clarifies exactly what those settings contain (notification types and features for the district). An agent can distinguish it from write-side siblings like alphaportal_set_notification and from unrelated reads like alphaportal_get_profile, though no sibling is named.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as alphaportal_get_profile or alphaportal_get_account. The agent must infer from the noun alone that this is the tool for reading district-level portal configuration.

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