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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 200-row cap and the organisationId/scope behavior per caller role. But it omits anything about authentication/permissions beyond role, result shape, or ordering, which is a gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Four compact sentences with the search purpose and filter set front-loaded, then scoping rules, then the cap. No significant waste, though the endpoint-as-spec framing is a little indirect.

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 7-parameter search with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scoping and the row cap but leaves the return structure and result ordering unaddressed. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the organisationId role rule. The description confirms carrier/contract/created-range filtering but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (search) and resource (labels) plus the filter dimensions (carrier, contract, created range), and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like ListRecentLabels and FindLabel. The reference to the POST /api/Labels/Search endpoint is slightly opaque but the intent is clear.

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?

Gives role-based context (partners may omit organisationId, subpartners search only their companies), which implies when the tool applies to different callers. However it never names alternatives or the conditions that should route an agent to SearchShippingLabels over ListRecentLabels or GetLabelsForOrder.

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