Get label settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses the concrete data returned—the six setting categories—which is valuable because there is no output schema, though it does not describe response shape or auth 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?

The description is front-loaded, but the first line is a shorthand list that the second sentence repeats in expanded form: size/file format, packing list, logo, QR codes, address correction, and export format. It is not excessively long, but the duplication costs efficiency.

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 zero-parameter read-only settings getter with rich annotations, the description covers the settings returned and makes the tool callable. Only a formal response shape is absent, which is not critical without an output schema.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The schema already establishes this, and the description correctly does not invent parameters.

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 enumerates the exact settings returned (label size/file format, packing list, logo, QR codes, address correction, export format) and situates them under 'Settings, General', so the resource is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling update_label_settings, so it stops short of 5.

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 sentence says when to call this instead of update_label_settings or any other sibling. The field list only implies it is a read of general settings, with no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative guidance.

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