Get Spam Settings

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 genuine value by explaining that `high_score` is a 1-50 SpamAssassin-style threshold at which mail is deleted, which is behavior an agent could not derive from the annotations. It does not say whether whitelist/blacklist entries are included in the response or what defaults apply to an unconfigured domain.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then one high-value clarification of a returned field. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 values needn't be enumerated, and the description still clarifies the one non-obvious field. For a single-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only the interaction with the whitelist/blacklist and update tools is left unstated.

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 single `domain` parameter is fully documented in the schema (format hints, example, character rules), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no further meaning about the domain argument, which matches the baseline 3.

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 the spam settings') scoped to 'a domain', which is unambiguous. It does not name or distinguish itself from the sibling update_spam_settings (nor get_spam_whitelist/blacklist), so the sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 read-only retrieval intent is implied by 'Returns', and the presence of update_spam_settings as a sibling makes the read/write split reasonably inferable. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus update_spam_settings or the whitelist/blacklist getters, and no prerequisites (e.g. domain must exist on the account) are given.

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