Get domain branding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly lists the data fields returned, which clarifies the read-only nature and output scope. However, it does not mention potential edge cases like null values or permission requirements, but for a simple get tool this is acceptable.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by a compact list of returned fields. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately informs the agent about what the tool does and what it returns. It could benefit from a note about return format or error behavior, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter 'name' with the description 'The domain name'. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('white-label branding') and enumerates exactly what is returned (brand name, logo URLs, favicon, support URL, admin URL visibility, webmail/admin styles). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_domain or update_domain_brand.

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 implies usage for retrieving branding-related information, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_domain or update_domain_brand. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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