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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds meaningful behavior: it requires authentication, returns only names and booleans, never secret values, and notes saved credentials are not live-verified. This proactively prevents misuse and clarifies data sensitivity beyond the structured annotations.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds high-value constraints (credential verification status, no secret values, authentication requirement). Every clause earns its place without fluff or repetition.

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-only tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what settings are returned, what is excluded, and the authentication prerequisite. Nothing meaningful is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax, but none is needed; the relevant semantics are about output, not input. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a 0-parameter tool.

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'), a specific resource ('the authenticated user's Meta Council settings'), and enumerates the contents: preferred model, plan tier, saved credentials, and credential-usage classification of tools. It goes beyond a generic 'get' and tells the agent exactly what data this tool returns.

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 establishes clear context: this is for the authenticated user's settings and requires authentication. It also explicitly warns that credentials are 'not live-verified' and that secret values are never returned, which tells the agent when not to rely on this tool. It does not name alternative tools, but for a zero-parameter settings getter, this is sufficient.

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