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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds useful lifecycle context beyond that: the label is unpaid, includes every rate, and must be purchased via buy_label. It does not explain destructive or idempotency details, but with annotations covering the safety profile this is a meaningful addition.

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?

It is one compact sentence, front-loaded with the key state (unpaid draft) and the next action, with no filler. The telegraphic fragment style is slightly less polished than a full sentence, but every word earns its place.

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 13-parameter creation tool with a nested required recipient object and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits the required address structure, package dimensions and weight, packaging, signature, insurance, and address_correction behavior.

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 only 38% across 13 parameters, including a nested recipient object, dimensions, packaging, signature, insurance, and address_correction. The description mentions none of these parameter semantics, so it does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 phrase 'Unpaid draft label for one package with every rate' identifies the resource and scope: a draft label for a single package including all rates. Naming buy_label distinguishes this from the purchase step, though the creation verb is implicit rather than stated.

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?

It explicitly routes the purchase step to buy_label, giving a clear create-draft-then-buy workflow. It does not state exclusions, such as when to use get_rates instead, or other prerequisites, so it falls short of a 5.

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