scf_get_document_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the viewer-role requirement and the specific settings that will be returned. It also implicitly conveys there are no side effects, which is consistent with the read-only hint.

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 entire description is a single sentence that front-loads the operation and resource, then compactly lists the three settings returned. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple getter with one well-documented parameter, the description covers role, operation, resource, and return contents. No output schema exists, but the list of returned settings compensates adequately, so nothing important is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, and the org_id parameter already has a helpful description pointing to scf_list_organizations. The tool description does not need to add parameter semantics; the schema carries the full burden, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the exact resource ('organization's document-generation settings') with the precise fields returned. It clearly differentiates from the sibling 'scf_update_document_settings' by emphasizing the read-only nature.

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 gives clear context by stating this is a read operation appropriate for a viewer role and enumerates what it returns. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read vs. update contrast with sibling tools is evident.

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