Get settings

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent safety, and the description adds genuine value on top: the exact scope of what settings are returned (allowance, usage, price per text part, booking-event notification channels) and the fact that the data is read-only with edits made in the Booksy app. Return shape is described more richly than the annotations alone would convey.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the substantive scope; the first sentence is a compressed noun list that reads slightly like a fragment but still earns its place by enumerating the setting categories. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the returned settings categories. An agent knows what it will get and that the state is read-only; only the exact response shape (field names, units) is unspecified, which is acceptable for a settings read.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly makes no parameter claims.

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 names the resource precisely: message allowance/usage, client messaging channels, and notification settings, with a clear read verb ("Reads the settings an agent needs before messaging clients"). It is specific and concrete, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, list_notifications, which covers the notification feed rather than the notification preferences.

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?

"Reads the settings an agent needs before messaging clients" gives a real usage condition, and "Changes stay in the Booksy app" tells the agent this is not the path for editing. It stops short of naming any alternative or prerequisite for other settings lookups, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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