conduyt_scheduled_export_get_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that the response includes a plan/Enterprise-entitlement check and the config fields, but says nothing about permissions required, behavior when no scheduled export is configured, or whether the endpoint errors on unsupported plans.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and back-loaded with a useful capability disclosure. No filler and nothing that repeats the name verbatim.

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 zero-parameter read with no output schema, the description compensates well by naming the fields returned and the entitlement check. It is only slightly short of complete because it omits what happens when the feature is unavailable or unconfigured.

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 schema requirement is trivially satisfied and the baseline is 4. The description correctly frames it as an account-level read requiring no identifiers.

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 (get) and resource (the account's scheduled-export configuration) and even enumerates the returned fields (enabled, frequency, entities) plus the plan-availability flag. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like conduyt_scheduled_export_update_settings or conduyt_account_exports_list, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Read-vs-write usage is only implied through the name and the presence of conduyt_scheduled_export_update_settings; the description never says 'use update_settings to change this' or when to prefer account_exports_list for past export runs. The correct invocation is inferable but not stated.

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