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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: results are scoped to the caller's tenant ('in your scope') and ordered newest first. It stops short of covering the read-only/safety profile, pagination or truncation behavior beyond limit=100, or what happens when no labels match.

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 filler, and the core purpose plus ordering is front-loaded before the workflow hint. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 zero-required-parameter, four-optional-parameter list tool, the description covers purpose, ordering and scope, but with no annotations and no output schema it leaves the result shape (what fields a label entry carries) and pagination limits unexplained. Adequate to invoke correctly, thin on what the agent gets back.

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 all four parameters (limit, carrier, dateFrom, intentId) are already documented with defaults and formats. The description adds no syntax or format detail for any of them; 'in your scope' only hints at an implicit scope filter not exposed as a parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource (list recent shipping labels) plus two real qualifiers: scope-limited ('in your scope') and sorted newest first. That is far more precise than siblings like GetLabel or FindLabel, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with SearchShippingLabels or GetLabelsForOrder, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

It gives one concrete usage hook — 'Use before batch RemakeLabel' — which tells the agent this is a discovery step preceding a bulk re-creation flow. However, there is no when-not guidance and no indication of how it differs from SearchShippingLabels or FindLabel for the same discovery need, so selection between alternatives 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.