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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value the annotations lack: the required write scope and the cross-tool dependency on list_service_areas. It stops short of stating what happens on duplicate names or validation failure.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then scope requirement, then prerequisite. Zero filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

For a 16-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth and the key prerequisite. It omits duplicate-name behavior (the schema flags name as unique per service area) and any notion of the created object's identifier, which would round it out.

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 100% across 16 parameters, so the schema already carries every field's meaning, constraints and enums. The only parameter-adjacent note is the service_area_id resolution hint; otherwise the description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Create a new LoS measure within a service area.' An agent can tell it apart from create_los_measurement or create_los_consequence by the resource noun, though it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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?

Gives two concrete operating conditions: the required los_measures:write scope and the instruction to resolve service_area_id via list_service_areas first. It names the helper tool explicitly, but offers no when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., bulk_create for multiple measures).

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