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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the auth requirement (store's own authenticated Correios contract) and that a fresh link is produced, but says nothing about link expiry, idempotency, or how it differs behaviorally from recover_label_pdf.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the usage trigger, then the prerequisite. Minimal waste, though the second sentence is slightly circuitous in phrasing.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and schema coverage is full. What remains missing is behavioral edge detail (link lifetime) and disambiguation from recover_label_pdf, but the core is complete.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'by its id', adding no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 (get a fresh download link) plus the exact resource (PDF of a Correios pré-postagem) and how it's keyed (by id). It references generate_label but does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling recover_label_pdf, which appears to overlap.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: use when generate_label's link reason was label_pdf_timeout to obtain a new link or re-check status. This is clear context, but it does not state when NOT to use it or name recover_label_pdf as an alternative for the same need.

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