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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that results include source pages and that optional claims are checked against the rules, which is useful context about output structure and validation behavior. However, it doesn't specify error handling, rate limits, or the granularity of the checks.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs in the scope. No fluff, though slightly dense. It could be structured better with a clear 'use when' clause, but it's efficient.

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?

Given three parameters, one required, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema details, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter specifics or return structure, though it does mention source pages. For a tool with such sparse schema metadata, more guidance is needed to ensure correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints that 'market' is required (via 'of the market') and that 'claims' are optional and checked against rules. It does not explain what 'product_type' does, what format 'market' expects (e.g., ISO code), or what 'claims' should contain. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to fill.

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 resource retrieval: labelling requirements and claims rules by market. The verb 'get' is implicit through 'what the label must say', and the dual scope (label requirements + claims rules) is clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_notification_requirements or get_product_documents, but the domain is distinct enough to be inferable.

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 mentions that optional claims are checked against the rules, which implies a conditional behavior, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_notification_requirements. No prerequisites (e.g., market must be known) or exclusions are stated.

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