Read the ranking and filtering settings

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes well past that: it names the auth requirement (YACY_ADMIN_PASSWORD) and a conditional access rule (trust filter entries only visible with YACY_ALLOW_TRUST_SETTINGS=1). It also describes the exact return shape, though it does not mention rate limits or failure behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the sibling relationship, then the return shape, then the conditional caveat and auth note. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 compensates by specifying the returned object structure and the fields per entry. Combined with the auth preconditions and the env-var-gated trust settings, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 4 baseline applies. The description correctly documents the keyed-object return structure with 'value', 'meaning' and 'format' fields, which adds semantic value even though there are no inputs to describe.

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+resource ('Read the current ranking and result filtering settings') and immediately differentiates from its write-side sibling set_ranking_setting. An agent can tell exactly what it gets back and which tool it pairs with.

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?

Frames usage explicitly: call it 'before you change one with set_ranking_setting', which establishes it as the read-before-write companion. There is no explicit when-not case, but the read/write pairing with the sibling makes the selection unambiguous.

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