get_order_labels

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the underlying Shopline API endpoint (GET /v1/orders/{order_id}/labels) and the raw response structure with labels array containing tracking_number, carrier, and label_url. It does not cover error handling or side effects, but for a read-only GET tool this is reasonable transparency.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, note, API call, and return structure. Each section provides distinct value: disambiguation, endpoint, and output shape. No wasted sentences.

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 simplicity (one parameter) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what it returns, how to access it, and how it differs from a similarly named tool. It could mention when not to use it beyond the tags distinction, but overall it's adequately 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 schema already describes the only parameter order_id with clear documentation that it is the internal ID from query_orders, so description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 the tool retrieves shipping label information (物流面單/寄送單) for a specified order, including tracking number and carrier. It explicitly distinguishes from get_order_tags, showing precise scope and verb usage.

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 an explicit alternative: '要查訂單分類用的標記請用 get_order_tags' (use get_order_tags for order classification tags), and clarifies that label here is not the same as tags. This is a clear when-not/alternative statement.

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