list_labels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read/list operation and adds context about compatibility with search_treks. However, it does not explain the behavior of the force_refresh parameter, caching, or the return format, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the purpose with examples, and the second gives a concrete usage tip. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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?

The tool is simple with an output schema, and the description covers its core purpose and integration with search_treks. However, the undocumented force_refresh parameter and lack of explicit differentiation from list_activities make the description not fully complete for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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 only parameter, force_refresh, has no schema description and is not mentioned in the tool description at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no compensatory meaning for this parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Liste') with a clear resource ('labels de réglementation disponibles sur l'instance GeoTrek configurée') and includes concrete examples. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling tool list_activities (labels vs activities) and explicitly relates to search_treks via the label_names parameter.

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 explains that returned names can be used directly in search_treks' label_names parameter, providing concrete usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with list_activities, so it stops short of full guidance.

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