label_detail

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails it: it does not state that this is a read-only lookup, does not say what happens for an unknown slug (error vs. empty), and does not indicate whether the label payload includes linked products or metadata. The only behavioral hint is that lookup is keyed by slug.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource identification is front-loaded ahead of the example value. It is terse to the point of under-specification, 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 need not be described, and the tool is a simple one-parameter lookup. Still, the absence of any annotations plus no usage or slug-provenance guidance leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 0% for the single 'slug' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does partially, by giving a concrete example value ('bio-knospe') that reveals the slug format, but it never says where to obtain valid slugs (presumably from label_products) or how slug matching behaves.

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 identifies the resource ('Label (certification) page') and clarifies that 'label' means a certification such as 'bio-knospe', which helps disambiguate from retailer-name meanings. However, the action is only implied by 'by slug' — there is no explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'retrieve' — and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling label_products, which operates on the same label concept.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative (label_products for listing products under a label). The agent must infer both the purpose and the routing decision from the name alone.

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