accounting_export_settings_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that it scopes to the active company and lists the returned settings categories, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or what happens if no config exists.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core action and scope come first, followed by a compact enumeration of the return payload. Nothing is redundant.

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 parameterless read-only getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the one thing that would otherwise be missing: what the response actually contains (account codes, journal mappings, export preferences per integration). Minor residual gap is the absence of any note about unconfigured companies.

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 description coverage is 100% with the single optional companyId already documented as a UUID override that defaults to the active company. The description's mention of 'active company' is consistent with, but not additive to, the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and precise resource ('accounting export configuration for the active company'), and enumerates the target integrations (Saga, Winmentor, Ciel). It is clearly distinguishable from accounting_export_settings_update by its read semantics, though it never names the sibling tools explicitly.

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 by the read-only 'get configuration' framing and the mention of account codes/journal mappings, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no pointer to accounting_export_settings_update or accounting_export_zip as alternatives.

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