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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is narrower. It still adds real context the annotations lack: results are summary rows only, bodies are excluded, filters combine with AND, and Admin/Superuser authorization is required. Only the pagination/return-shape behavior is left implicit.

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 with no filler. The core scope ('summary rows without bodies') is front-loaded, followed by filter semantics and the access prerequisite in descending order of importance.

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 10-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what is returned at a high level (summary rows, no bodies), how filters combine, and who may call it. What's missing is a concrete sense of the returned row fields and how pagination interacts with the 200-row cap, which matters given there is no output schema to consult.

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% and each of the 10 parameters carries its own description (limit range, date formats, status enum, carrier by name or id, partial-match fields), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only one generic note that all filters are optional and AND-combined; it does not clarify semantics like intentId correlation or partial-match behavior beyond what the schema states.

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/list) and resource (label log summary rows) plus a scoping qualifier ('without bodies') that separates it from a full-body log fetch. It never names the obvious sibling get_label_log, so an agent must infer the split from the 'without bodies' phrasing rather than being routed explicitly.

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 description gives useful preconditions ('All filters are optional and combined with AND', 'Admin or Superuser access required'), which tells the agent how to build a query and whether it may call it at all. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names alternatives such as get_label_log, FindLabel, or SearchShippingLabels.

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