get_product_labels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately states the tool's purpose (returns labels/certifications) and is a simple read operation, but it does not mention idempotency, auth requirements, or error handling. The description is straightforward but lacks explicit behavioral traits beyond the core functionality.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes concrete examples. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no extraneous information.

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 the tool's simplicity (single required parameter, existing output schema), the description is fully adequate. It explains what data is returned and provides illustrative examples, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to interpret its 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?

The single parameter barcode has 100% schema description coverage with 'EAN-Barcode des Produkts'. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 that the tool returns certifications and labels of a product, providing specific examples (Bio, Fairtrade, etc.). This verb+resource combination is distinct from siblings like get_eco_score or get_nutrition_facts, ensuring no confusion.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no provision of conditions, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools. The usage context is implied but not formally guided.

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