Show X data source and storage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations: it discloses the conditional logic behind the returned value (x_api when X_BEARER_TOKEN is set) and a security guarantee — 'Never reveals the token' — that no annotation conveys.

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 sentence, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the conditional value mapping and the security caveat. Every clause earns its place and nothing is 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 must carry the return contract, and it does outline the three returned facts and the possible data-source values. It stops short of describing the shape or format of the response (e.g., ordering, how the path/pricing fields are presented), which is a minor remaining gap for a no-argument diagnostic tool.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No misuse risk exists from parameter semantics.

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 a specific resource — the active X data source, data file path, and pricing assumptions — and enumerates the possible data-source values (x_api, fixture, none), so an agent knows exactly what introspection this returns. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which all deal with creators, deals, and payouts rather than system configuration.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this to discover which backing store is active before fetching data, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any named alternative for introspecting configuration.

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