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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds real interpretive value beyond them: the 10-record default cap and the warning not to equate an absent record with an absent issuance, which directly affects how the agent reads results.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by scoping and the two cautionary rules. Little waste; each sentence carries a distinct instruction.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter diagnostic tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotation-covered safety, the description covers invocation, scope, the result-interpretation caveat, and the key misuse to avoid. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents source, orderId, instanceId, and supportCode. The description restates the source/orderId pairing and the supportCode fallback behavior, adding slight emphasis but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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: query label issuance attempts for the authenticated store, either by supportCode or the 10 most recent. This is clearly a diagnostic/read tool distinguishable from generate_label and the other diagnose_* siblings by name and content, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling.

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?

Explains how to invoke it (by supportCode, or default to the 10 most recent) and when apps are in scope (Wix/Shopify only via a server-configured link). It adds a clear when-not: do not create another label to resolve a pending PDF, steering the agent away from generate_label/recover_label_pdf. It lacks explicit routing against the sibling diagnose_contract_issue/diagnose_quote_issue tools.

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