white_label_config_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose that this is a read operation (Get) and mentions the Business plan entitlement aspect, which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe pagination, potential errors, or what happens if the org isn't entitled — reasonable for a simple config-getter. Given no annotations and no output schema, a 3 is fair — it conveys the core behavior but no failure/edge-case context.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Get the organization's white-label branding configuration'), and efficiently enumerates the returned fields. Zero waste, every word earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter configuration getter with no output schema, this description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent what data comes back (entitlement, app name, logo URL, accent color, Storno branding removal) which is the primary missing context. It could optionally enumerate exact field names for the return payload, but given no output schema exists this is already decent coverage.

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 has 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no params, there's nothing to document, so this scores favorably. The description compensates for the empty schema by describing what will be returned, which is the relevant semantic content here.

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 clearly states the tool gets the org's white-label branding configuration and enumerates the returned fields (app name, logo URL, accent color, Storno branding removal). It's specific with verbs and resources. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from its sibling white_label_config_update or white_label_config_verify_domain, though the read-only nature is implied by 'Get'.

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 identifies the Business plan requirement and lists returned data, which gives some context on when the results matter, but provides no guidance on when to use this vs siblings (like white_label_config_update for modifying, or verify_domain). No alternative tools are named or exclusions given.

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