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

The description discloses the output format (JSONL) and row semantics (one per assignment), which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not mention potential edge cases like large result sets, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the purpose and output format. No unnecessary words or 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?

The description is sufficient for a simple list tool, but it does not specify the exact fields present in each row (e.g., account ID, label name). This minor gap is acceptable given the typical expectation of such a tool, but a bit more detail would make it fully complete.

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 sole parameter 'accountIds' is fully documented in the schema description, including its optionality, meaning, and default behavior. The reference to the 'numeric Id field' from the account listing adds helpful context.

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 retrieves account labels as JSONL, with a specific resource (account labels) and action (Get). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'account' which likely lists accounts, and 'account_label' is unambiguous.

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 account-label assignments, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over others. However, given the sibling set, the purpose is fairly evident, so it is not misleading.

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