Get package by label

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

With no annotations, the burden is on the description to explain behavior. It does disclose that this is a lookup operation returning a full package record including source and testing details, but it stays silent on possible not-found behavior, default license handling, or whether any side effects occur.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key action and resource, gives a useful example, and ends with return-value context. Every element 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 simple lookup with two parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is sufficient. It names the return content, provides a label format example, and the schema covers the optional licenseNumber behavior. Minor gaps like not-found semantics are acceptable for such a straightforward read operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a concrete METRC tag label example and emphasizing that the label parameter is the lookup key, which clarifies the expected input format beyond the schema's generic 'package tag label.'

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 clearly states the specific operation: look up a single package by its METRC tag label. It also states what is returned (full record with source and testing details), making it easy to distinguish from sibling list tools or finish_package.

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 clearly implies this tool is for fetching one specific package when a label is already known. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer list_active_packages or get_lab_test_results instead, but the 'single package by label' framing provides clear usage context.

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