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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly signals a write operation ("Create a NEW"), but discloses nothing about side effects: whether the carrier is charged, what happens to the referenced existing label, whether it requires permissions, or whether the call is idempotent. For a label-creating mutation with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 zero padding. The core action is front-loaded and the caveat about completed orders is appended where it belongs.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the intent and the copy-from-existing behavior, which is enough to pick it. It stops short of the behavioral disclosure (cost, fate of old label, permissions) that an unannotated write tool ideally needs.

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%; both parameters are already documented in the schema (labelId as the source, intentId from RecordUserQuestion). The description adds no further detail about parameter format or constraints, so the baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Create a NEW shipping label") and, crucially, the source of the settings (the same Zineps order and carrier contract/product as an existing label), which separates it from the sibling CreateLabelForOrder. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

"Works even when the order is already complete" gives a useful usage condition and hints at when this is preferable to creating a fresh label. However, it never names an alternative (e.g., CreateLabelForOrder) or states when NOT to use it, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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