get_sales_agent_config

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

No annotations are provided (no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.), so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'fetch,' which implies a read operation, but it doesn't state whether the configuration is persisted vs ephemeral, whether authentication is required, or whether the returned object is complete or partial. With zero annotation coverage, this is a thin behavioral description.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It states the verb, resource, and scope in one clean statement. There is nothing extraneous or repetitive.

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?

The tool is a simple no-parameter fetch operation, so the complexity is low and the description adequately covers the core purpose. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description doesn't reveal what the returned configuration contains, whether it can be null/empty for new users, or whether it reflects unsaved drafts. For a tool that returns structured configuration data, this is a moderate gap.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (there are no parameters to document). The description adds context by specifying 'current user's,' which scopes the implicit auth context. With no parameters, baseline is 4, and the description adequately covers the only relevant scope dimension.

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 'Fetch the current user's AI sales agent configuration.' clearly specifies a verb (fetch), a resource (AI sales agent configuration), and a scope (current user's). It distinguishes from siblings like update_sales_agent_config (which mutates) and get_sales_agent_actions (which likely returns actions). Though short, it effectively communicates the tool's purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention related tools like update_sales_agent_config for modifying config, or how this differs from get_sales_agent_actions or process_sales_agent. A user must infer from the name alone that this is the read counterpart to the update operation.

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