get_label

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

The description notes it is read-only and that errors (missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, rate limits) are returned as errors. This adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation and aligns with the openWorldHint, though it does not detail how these errors are surfaced. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, usage distinction, and parameter notes. Slightly repetitive in mentioning error scenarios, but no filler or irrelevant content.

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 a 100% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers identification and usage. It adds essential notes on formatting and error conditions. It could optionally mention what the returned label object contains, but this is not required since no output schema exists and the schema covers input.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra value—only reaffirms 'numeric ID or URL-encoded path' for project_id and mentions label_id can be ID or title, but this is mostly restating schema information.

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?

Clearly states 'Get a single label from a project' with a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes this from sibling list/search tools ('choose the corresponding list or search tool when you need to discover multiple resources'), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'for a known resource' vs. alternatives ('list or search tool'). Also instructs on required parameters and how to format them ('numeric ID or complete URL-encoded path'), which directly aids tool selection and invocation.

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