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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is fully covered. The description's only added behavior detail is that the response bundles configuration (targets, data source, weights), which is useful context given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about not-found errors or permissions.

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?

One sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb, resource, and lookup key, then appending the most decision-relevant detail about returned 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?

For a simple read-only single-record fetcher with full annotation coverage, a fully described parameter, and no output schema, the description says enough: what it returns and how to address it. A brief note on behavior when the ID is unknown would make it 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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the UUID format and pattern. The phrase 'by ID' in the description adds no syntax or constraint information beyond that, matching the baseline for schema-complete parameters.

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 (Get), resource (LoS measure), and lookup key (by ID), plus a scope hint that the full configuration is included. It is clearly distinguishable from list_los_measures and the update/create/delete siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetching one record when you already have its UUID versus listing. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or pointer to list_los_measures for discovering IDs, and no guidance on the related get_los_measurement / get_los_proposed_target siblings.

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