Getting enterprise settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds minimal context beyond 'gets settings', not explaining what settings are included or any special authentication needs. No contradictions.

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 repetitive: 'Getting enterprise settings.' and 'Gets settings for an enterprise.' are redundant. The third sentence trails off without completing. It wastes words without adding value.

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 the presence of annotations, output schema, and fully described parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on what enterprise settings encompass or why one would query them.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already explained. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema fields.

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 it gets enterprise settings, which is clear and specific to this tool. However, it repeats the title in the first sentence and doesn't differentiate from other 'get' tools like get_setting or get_me, but the resource is distinct enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., update_enterprise or other get tools). There are no prerequisites or context for usage.

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