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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description still adds real behavior: tenant scoping consequences of omitting organisationId and a hard 200-row result cap, which the agent cannot infer from structured fields. It stops short of 5 because nothing is said about ordering or whether the cap implies truncation rather than pagination.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core scope and the endpoint equivalence, then permissions, then the cap. Every sentence carries information, though the POST /api/Labels/Search reference is of limited use to an agent that cannot read that spec.

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, all-optional tool with no output schema, the description covers scoping, permissions, and the result cap well, but says nothing about what a returned row contains or how results are ordered. An agent knows how to call it but not what it will get 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by adding the semantic consequence of omitting organisationId for partners vs. subpartners, which the schema's "Required for staff" note does not fully spell out. The carrier/contract/date-range restatement is redundant with the schema and adds no syntax detail.

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 ("Search labels") and enumerates the filterable dimensions (carrier, contract, created range), plus names the equivalent REST endpoint. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from look-alike siblings such as FindLabel, ListRecentLabels, or GetLabelsForOrder, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The tenant scoping sentence (partners may omit organisationId, subpartners are limited to their companies) gives a real usage condition, but the description never states when to pick this over FindLabel / ListRecentLabels / search_label_logs. Usage is implied by the filter set rather than prescribed.

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