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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: whether results are paginated, what fields are returned, how the lookup behaves on partial or ambiguous matches, or whether it is strictly read-only. 'Find' implies a read, but that is inferred, not stated.

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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the accepted identifiers following. It wastes no words, though the terseness is partly what leaves the behavioral and routing gaps open.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does the minimum: it explains what can be searched but not what comes back or how results are capped. Adequate but clearly incomplete for a tool embedded in a dense family of label lookups.

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% and each parameter is documented in the schema, including the default limit and the intentId source. The description restates the query key options rather than adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Find') and resource ('shipping labels') plus the lookup keys it accepts, so an agent understands the operation immediately. However, it does not distinguish itself from several near-siblings such as SearchShippingLabels, GetLabel, ListRecentLabels, or LookupByTrackTrace, leaving the agent to guess which finder to use.

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 lists accepted query inputs but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many overlapping lookup siblings. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that route the agent to an alternative.

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