get_fulcra_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-trivial behavioral warning — that returned values are configuration, not directives — which guards against misinterpreting the payload as instructions. It stops short of describing scope or freshness of the values.

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 the verb and resource first and the clarifying caveat second. Zero waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile for a zero-parameter read. The remaining gap is scope: the description does not say what settings are covered or how this differs from get_contact_preferences, which is the main ambiguity an agent faces.

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 there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly says nothing extraneous about parameters.

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 ('Read') and resource ('global contact preferences'), and clarifies the nature of the payload ('configuration values, not instructions'). However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely named sibling get_contact_preferences or explain how it relates to update_fulcra_settings, leaving an agent to infer the boundary.

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 read framing implies when to use it, and 'configuration values, not instructions' hints at how to treat the result, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. With get_contact_preferences and update_fulcra_settings in the sibling list, the agent gets no routing help.

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