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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are scoped to a single order; it does not say what happens when an order has no labels, whether results are paginated, or what fields a label carries.

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 short sentence with the key constraint (order-scoped, GUID identifier) front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is buried or redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place a caller could learn what a returned label looks like or how results are shaped, and it does not cover that. For a simple two-parameter read it is minimally sufficient, but a consumer cannot predict the response.

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 are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that orderId is a WebOrder id / GUID but adds no format, syntax, or interpretation detail beyond that, and says nothing about the optional intentId correlation parameter.

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 (List) and resource (labels) scoped to a Zineps order / WebOrder GUID, so the agent knows this is a per-order label listing. It does not name or contrast with near-siblings like GetLabel, ListRecentLabels, or FetchWebshopOrder, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 phrase 'created for a Zineps order (WebOrder id / GUID)' implies the preconditions (you must already know the order id) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. No alternative tool is mentioned, so selection against GetLabel or FindLabel is left to inference.

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