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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the scope note that results are the user's own labels; it says nothing about ordering, empty results, or whether labels are account- vs workspace-scoped.

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 with the verb and scope first and the downstream rationale second. Every clause earns its place 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?

For a zero-parameter, fully annotated read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. It could briefly characterize the returned list (shape/ordering), but the annotations already carry the behavioral essentials.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The '(tags)' gloss mildly reinforces what the parameter-less call yields.

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+resource ('List all of the user's labels') and clarifies the domain term with '(tags)', so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name a sibling, but the mention of filtering/applying implicitly separates it from contextli_filter_notes_by_label and contextli_add_label_to_note.

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 clause 'so you know what's available to filter or apply' gives a clear reason to call it, i.e. discovery before filter_notes_by_label or add_label_to_note. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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