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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the set of filter dimensions but says nothing beyond annotations about result shape, pagination, or ordering.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the filter scope. The 'or' list mirrors the schema parameter list rather than adding new information, but it costs little.

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 an all-optional, read-only list endpoint with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate: an agent knows it will retrieve LoS measures and can narrow with the listed filters. Slightly thin on how results behave (paging, default ordering) but nothing critical is missing.

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 every one of the 8 parameters is already documented (including enum values and the automatic all-pages behavior). The description merely restates the filterable fields, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema; baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('LoS measures') and enumerates the filter dimensions, which distinguishes it from the get/create/update/delete Los_measure siblings. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool, but the list-vs-get distinction is self-evident from the verb.

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: an agent can infer this is the enumeration endpoint for LoS measures, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over get_los_measure or list_los_measurements, nor any exclusion guidance.

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