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

Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent, non-destructive write operation. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the one-row-per-measure-and-year constraint, the 409 duplicate response, and the required write scope. It does not describe the success return payload, but that is minor against annotation coverage.

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 dense but front-loaded, leading with the purpose and then covering constraints, alternatives, parameter choice, permissions, and prerequisites in a few tightly packed sentences. Each 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?

For a create tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, uniqueness constraints, duplicate handling, parameter selection, scope requirements, and a prerequisite lookup. It omits what a successful response contains, but the core invocation guidance is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the community-vs-technical distinction for target_statement and target_value. The description restates that distinction without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: recording the proposed level of service for a LoS measure in one future year, with regulatory citation. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings such as create_infrastructure_los_target, create_system_los_target, or create_los_measure.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: a duplicate returns 409, so use update_los_proposed_target instead. It also names the prerequisite tool (list_los_measures to resolve los_measure_id) and the required scope, leaving nothing to inference.

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