Get Spam Whitelist

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: wildcard patterns, case-insensitive matching, and that sender lists are shared account-wide across all domains — the last of which materially affects how results should be interpreted. It says nothing about result ordering or volume, but that is minor.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, semantics of the resource, matching rules, and account-level scope. Purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description only needs to supply behavioral context, which it largely does. The one gap is the mild tension between the required `domain` argument and the statement that sender lists are shared account-wide, which an agent may need to reason about.

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% for the single `domain` parameter, so the schema already explains format and constraints. The description adds no further meaning about how `domain` affects the returned entries — notably, it does not reconcile the required domain argument with the claim that lists are shared across all domains.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Lists the spam whitelist entries for a domain'), which is unambiguous and distinct from the add/remove whitelist siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate from adjacent read tools such as get_spam_settings or get_spam_blacklist, leaving that routing to the agent.

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 explains what whitelist entries do ('Whitelisted senders bypass spam filtering'), which implies when to inspect them, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as get_spam_settings or get_spam_blacklist. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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