get_labels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does explain filtering operators (e.g., 'prefix: eq., contains., contains-i.') and provides date examples, which adds useful behavioral detail. However, it does not explicitly state read-only status, pagination caveats, or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity for an agent relying solely on this description.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a bullet-style Args list. Every line adds value, and the param details are immediately scannable. No fluff or repetition of schema defaults.

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?

Given that an output schema is present, the description need not explain return values. It covers filtering, pagination, and parameter semantics thoroughly. However, it omits any mention of default sort order or how results are ordered, which would be useful for a list endpoint. Overall, it is complete enough for effective invocation.

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%, but the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter with meaning and examples. It explains the filter syntax for 'name', the date format for 'created_at'/'updated_at', and pagination semantics for 'limit'/'offset'. This is far more helpful than the bare schema properties.

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 opens with 'Get custom labels (tags) used to organize records,' which is a specific verb+resource pair that clearly differentiates this tool from sibling tools like get_records or get_categories. The term 'custom labels' is unambiguous and immediately conveys the tool's scope.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (when you need to fetch labels/tags) but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools. Since all sibling tools are list/retrieval operations, the unique focus on labels provides implicit context, but exclusions are absent.

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