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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a write operation with external side effects. The description adds the useful prerequisite about contract/product selection, but it does not explain cost, irreversibility, or error behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the precondition is front-loaded immediately after the action. Every sentence 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 destructive, open-world write tool with no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the core action and one important precondition, but an agent might still want to know whether the label is billable, idempotent, or what a success response contains.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (orderId and intentId) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not value-adding.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a shipping label for a Zineps order.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as CancelLabel, GetLabel, and RemakeLabel. An agent can identify the tool's function without opening the 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 description gives a clear precondition: 'The order must already have carrier contract and product selected in Zineps.' That tells the agent when the tool is usable, though it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it.

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