Structured Result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state the core return behavior (both text and structuredContent), which is useful, but it does not address the role of the label parameter, edge cases, or any limitations. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 one sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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: one optional parameter, no required fields, and an output schema. The description states the core return behavior, and the output schema presumably covers the structure of structuredContent. However, it does not mention the intended use case or how the label parameter influences the result, leaving a small but noticeable gap. Given the simplicity, it is mostly complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single optional 'label' parameter, described as 'Optional label for the generated result.' The description adds no further semantic detail about how the label affects the output, so it remains at the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 states the tool's primary function: returning both text content and structuredContent conforming to outputSchema. This clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like resource_link_result. The verb 'Returns' and the specific resource make the purpose clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools are listed but not referenced, so the description fails to help the agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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