Get White-label Config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: the first-access default-seeding side effect, which explains why a 'read' may materialize data. Note that this seeding sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint, though idempotent and non-destructive make it a benign lazy-initialization pattern rather than a contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the field list, followed by structured metadata (group, endpoint, cost) that is clearly demarcated. No filler prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the auth requirement is stated. What is covered is sufficient to invoke it correctly; only the relationship to the other whitelabel tools is unaddressed.

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; the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed beyond the caller's identity.

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 (Read) and resource (the authenticated user's branding overrides) and enumerates the concrete fields returned (logo, colour palette, font, footer text, custom domain). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as astroway_whitelabel_preview, astroway_whitelabel_logo, or astroway_whitelabel_domain_verify, which is the only thing keeping it off a 5.

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 phrase 'authenticated user's' makes the scoping clear and 'On first access, defaults are seeded' tells the agent the call is safe to make at any time. However, it never names when to prefer this over astroway_whitelabel_preview or the logo/domain siblings, so the choice between them is left to inference.

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