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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with a write operation. It adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing the required los_measurements:write scope, which an agent needs to know before attempting the call.

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, purpose front-loaded, with the authorization requirement and prerequisite following in priority order. No filler; every sentence carries actionable 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?

With no output schema, the description need not explain return values, and the 100%-covered schema handles field-level semantics. Auth scope and the ID-resolution prerequisite are covered, though it could say more about idempotency or duplicate handling for a non-idempotent create.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds meaning for los_measure_id by explaining it must be resolved via list_los_measures, which is more than the schema's terse "LoS measure ID (required)."

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 ("Record a new LoS measurement value"), so an agent immediately knows this creates a measurement record. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like create_los_measure or create_los_consequence, which are conceptually adjacent.

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 an explicit prerequisite ordering: "Resolve los_measure_id first via list_los_measures," which tells the agent to call another tool before this one. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use cases or alternative creation paths.

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