mailer_config_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the Business plan gating and the explicit guarantee that the password is never returned, which matters for an agent handling credentials.

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?

Three tight sentences: the first names the resource and plan requirement, the second enumerates the returned fields, the third flags the password exclusion. Nothing is repeated from the annotations and no sentence is filler.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the returned fields and the deliberate omission of the password. The one remaining gap is the unconfigured case (error vs. nulls), which an agent would want to know before branching.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is empty and consistent with the description's implication that the config is scoped to the caller's organization.

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 a specific resource (the organization's custom SMTP/email sender configuration), which is unambiguous against siblings like mailer_config_update, mailer_config_test and mailer_config_delete. The field list that follows further pins down exactly what is retrieved.

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 only implied — an agent infers this is the read side of the mailer_config family. The Business plan note is a useful prerequisite, but there is no explicit 'use this before updating' or 'call mailer_config_test to verify' routing, and no statement about what happens when no configuration exists yet.

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