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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish this as a safe, repeatable read. The description's useful addition is that it returns full configuration, not just the measure record. It says nothing about what happens when the ID doesn't exist (404 / error), which is meaningful behavior for a get-by-ID tool.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource and immediately followed by the ID-scoping and return payload. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 single-param read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the input (ID) and the shape of the return (full configuration). It stops short only on the not-found/error behavior of a get-by-ID call, which would make it fully self-contained.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as a UUID. The description's 'by ID' matches the schema but adds no format or constraint meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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) and resource (LoS measure) and its scope ('a single... by ID'). The phrase 'including all configuration (targets, data source, weights)' distinguishes it from the sibling list_los_measures, which would return many. An agent can route to it cleanly.

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?

The phrase 'by ID' and 'single' implies the ID-lookup use case versus its list sibling, and the retrieval-by-identifier pattern is strongly implied by the tool surface. But it never names list_los_measures or update_los_measure as alternatives, and gives no explicit when-to-use statement.

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