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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'GET' implies read-only, but there is no disclosure of pagination, permissions, rate limits, or what the response contains beyond the existence of an output schema. It is a bare endpoint wrapper with minimal behavioral 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?

The definition is terse, front-loading the endpoint, but its brevity comes at the cost of clarity—three fragments that read like metadata rather than a helpful instruction. No sentence is wasted, but the compression sacrifices understanding.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the description still omits what sales labels are, how the flat query is shaped, and any pagination or scoping behavior. For a tool taking a free-form query object, this is materially incomplete even accounting for the deferral to describe_nextesy_operation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does address both parameters at a surface level: 'Explicit company required' covers company_name and 'Flat query fields' hints that query is a flat key-value object. But it defers actual filter semantics to describe_nextesy_operation, leaving the query structure unexplained.

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 opens with 'Fixed JSON GET /api/v1/sales/labels', which is an endpoint reference rather than a statement of what the tool does. It never explains what a 'sales label' is or what listing them accomplishes, so an agent must infer purpose purely from the name plus an HTTP path.

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?

'Explicit company required' gives a precondition, and 'see describe_nextesy_operation for filters' routes the agent to a sibling for filter semantics. However, there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related listing tools like list_sales_orders or list_items.

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