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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. Referencing 'the same data as GET /api/Senders' usefully signals a side-effect-free read, but nothing is said about pagination, volume limits, required permissions, or whether the result is cached/filtered by signed-in organisation.

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 tight sentences with the resource stated up front and the practical hint about 'Code' following it. The REST endpoint parenthetical is slightly incidental but cheap and aids recognition for agents that know the API surface.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers the gist but could do more: it names only one returned field ('Code') and omits when to call it relative to label creation, which is the main reason an agent would reach for it.

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 intentId and organisationId are already documented in the schema and baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'Code' actually describes a return field rather than either parameter, so it adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 names the resource (sender addresses for the company) and maps it to a concrete REST endpoint (GET /api/Senders), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like ListBrands or ListContracts. It lacks an explicit verb, but 'Sender addresses for the company' communicates a list operation unambiguously.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. The trailing clause 'Code is the sender id used when creating a label' implies the tool's purpose (fetch sender IDs before label creation), but the agent must infer this rather than being told to call it ahead of CreateLabelForOrder.

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