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 useful context that this is a mirror of GET /api/Senders, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether results are paginated.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core statement of what the tool returns is front-loaded before the useful detail about the Code field.

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-optional-parameter list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The note about the Code field partially compensates for the missing output schema, though response shape beyond that field remains unstated.

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 optional parameters (intentId, organisationId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning to either parameter, which is acceptable at the baseline but not more.

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 precisely ('sender addresses for the company') and even pins it to the underlying endpoint GET /api/Senders, so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'list', and no sibling tool covers senders, so differentiation isn't really needed here.

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 statement or exclusion, but the closing clause ('Code is the sender id used when creating a label') implicitly routes the agent toward CreateLabelForOrder. That link is only implied, not spelled out with a condition.

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