white_label_config_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the plan gating and the entitlement-check behavior, so the agent knows a non-Business org gets a negative entitlement rather than an error.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource, the plan constraint, and the payload contents in one pass. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so field-by-field including the entitlement flag. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this zero-arg getter is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly adds no parameter claims and instead spends its space on return semantics.

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?

Specific verb (Get) plus precise resource (organization's white-label branding configuration) and an explicit enumeration of the returned values (entitlement flag, app name, logo URL, accent color, Storno-branding removal). An agent can distinguish this from white_label_config_update and the other *_config_get siblings without opening a schema.

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 parenthetical '(Business plan)' establishes a precondition for use and the description implies the read context clearly. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say what to do when the org isn't entitled beyond noting the entitlement flag is returned, so no exclusion guidance.

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