get_leaked_credential_check_settings

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only says 'Get' and names the resource, implying a read operation, but it does not describe required permissions, error conditions, or any behavioral nuances beyond what the name already suggests.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler. The resource and scope are front-loaded, and every word in the sentence contributes meaning.

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?

For a one-parameter getter with a fully documented schema, the description is minimally adequate for invoking the tool. However, it omits any usage context, output expectations, or differentiation from related settings tools, and there is no annotation or output schema to fill that 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?

Schema coverage is 100%: the only parameter, zone_id, is already described as 'The zone ID.' The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the schema alone is sufficient, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('leaked credential check settings') plus the scope ('for a zone'). It is clear enough to distinguish from the related sibling 'list_leaked_credential_detections', though it doesn't explicitly call out that distinction.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling settings or detection tools. It neither names alternatives nor states conditions or exclusions; usage is implied only by the tool name and the generic 'for a zone' scope.

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