M.Video FBS labels get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Get' and the parameter instruction, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately present the purpose and the critical usage instruction. No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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 the tool's single complex parameter and lack of output schema, the description provides the essential instruction about the request object, but omits details on response format, error conditions, or any other contextual edge cases. The 'exact object' guidance partially offsets this, but completeness remains moderate.

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 schema provides zero description for the 'request' parameter, but the description adds meaningful semantics by identifying it as an OmniNet request object and specifying it should be the exact object from the order workflow. This strongly compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 clearly states 'Get FBS order labels' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like mvideo_order_fbs_list or mvideo_order_fbs_status_list. The purpose is immediately understandable and not a tautology.

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 provides a clear usage context by instructing to 'Pass the exact OmniNet request object from the order workflow,' which tells the agent how to use the tool correctly. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the prerequisite is well-defined.

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