list_label_candidates

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It does assert a key behavioral trait — advisory output and no mutation of source facts — which tells the agent this is a safe read. However it says nothing about how distance is computed, cost/size of the result, or whether any prerequisites (an initialized semantic store) are needed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the read-only guarantee comes last where it is easy to scan. Brevity here flirts with under-specification rather than padding, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description leaves the required graph_path unexplained and gives no selection guidance among a large set of similarly named candidate-listing siblings. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, that leaves too much to inference.

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 required parameter graph_path has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned at all in the description. With coverage this low the description must compensate, and it does not say what a graph path refers to or how to obtain one.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List ... labels') with two distinguishing qualifiers: 'advisory' and 'distance-ranked'. It does separate itself from directionally similar siblings such as list_legend_catalog_candidates by the ranking claim, but it never explains what a 'label candidate' is versus those other candidate lists.

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?

No statement of when to call this instead of query_source_entities, list_legend_catalog_candidates, or the other list_*_candidates siblings. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely from the phrase 'advisory, distance-ranked'.

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