get_prompt_label

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the result is a 'full definition' with scope/color/status, which is largely restated by the output schema. No mention of error behavior (e.g., what happens for an unknown or cross-workspace label_id) or permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences, zero padding, with the identification constraint front-loaded before the sibling routing hint. Every clause carries 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?

For a simple single-record read with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this is nearly complete — purpose, selection condition, and alternative are all present. The only remaining gap is a hint about the workspace/organisation filtering scope, which is minor given the schema documents those parameters.

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 baseline applies. The description only implies that label_id is the required key; it says nothing about how workspace_id and organisation_id interact with retrieval (required vs. optional scoping), leaving that to the schema.

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 ('Fetch one label's full definition') and names the concrete fields returned (scope, color, status). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling list_prompt_labels, which it explicitly contrasts.

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 selection condition ('when you already know the label_id') and names the alternative tool plus its selecting condition ('list_prompt_labels is better for browsing candidates'). Nothing is left to inference.

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