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

The annotations already declare this as a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: Label rows are metadata and may be empty, while distinctStoryLabels reflect labels actually carried by live stories and include counts.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then explains the two result types and the relevant alternative usage. It is dense but every clause contributes useful selection or interpretation guidance.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns, and it does so clearly for both result collections. The single required parameter is fully covered by the schema, leaving no significant gaps for this read-only listing tool.

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?

The only parameter, projectId, is fully documented in the schema as a project UUID. The description does not add further semantics for that parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema description 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 description names a specific verb and resource, then clearly distinguishes the two result shapes: Label rows and distinct story label strings with counts. This differentiates it from create_label, update_label, delete_label, and story-label filtering tools.

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 points to stride.list_stories and bulk_update_stories for filtering or bulk-updating by the label NAME string, and explains that those paths do not require a Label row. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' clause, but the usage context and alternatives are clear.

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