accounting_export_settings_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description indicates it's a read-only configuration retrieval ('Get... returns settings'), which is a non-destructive action. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if no config exists (returns defaults? error?), whether the operation requires special permissions, or the format of the returned data. The word 'Get' implies safe read behavior but no explicit safety statement is made.

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 sentence that packs the resource, scope (active company), integrations, and content types. Zero waste, front-loaded with the verb and primary purpose. Every part earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (1 optional param, no nested objects, no output schema). The description adequately covers what the tool returns and the scope of the retrieval. Given the tool's low complexity, the description is reasonably complete. It could mention what happens when no configuration exists or whether defaults apply, but for a straightforward GET-style tool this is sufficient.

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% (single param fully described). The description adds meaningful context about the companyId param ('override uses active company if not set'), which clarifies the default behavior beyond the schema. This bonus context about the active-company fallback earns a 4 since it conveys semantic meaning not obvious from the schema alone.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('accounting export configuration') and enumerates the specific integrations covered (Saga, Winmentor, Ciel) and what's returned (account codes, journal mappings, export preferences). This is specific and distinguishes it from update/config siblings, though the sibling accounting_export_settings_update is directly related but well-differentiated.

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?

The description implies it's a read operation for retrieving a company's export config, with the companyId param explained as an override. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs accounting_export_settings_update, when the active company is sufficient, or any prerequisites. No exclusions are given. This is adequate but not explicit.

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