Get storage settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by stating the required authentication scope (`account:settings:read`) and by explaining null-field semantics, including that both fields are null when settings were never saved.

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?

Front-loaded with the return summary, then a tight bullet list documenting each field, then an auth note. Every sentence carries information; only minor redundancy between the intro and bullets.

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 correctly carries the burden of describing return values, documenting both fields and their null meanings, and disclosing the permission requirement. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the `account` key. The description adds only the vague qualifier 'account-level' and does not explain the parameter's semantics or the null/omitted behavior, so it adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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 and resource: returns account-level storage lifecycle settings for newly uploaded fal CDN files. The scope word 'account-level' plus 'storage lifecycle' cleanly separates it from siblings like update_storage_settings, get_storage_file_acl, and get_usage.

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 usage by defining what the tool returns, and its read-only nature implicitly contrasts with update_storage_settings, but it never says when to call this versus alternatives such as get_storage_file_acl. No explicit routing or exclusions are given.

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