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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the shape of each returned row and that community measures carry target_statement while technical measures carry target_value in the measure's own unit (not money). This is useful return-semantics disclosure not present in structured fields.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and its granularity, then the field semantics, then the filters. Every sentence carries content and none repeats the tool name.

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 usefully explains row granularity and the community/technical field split, and it names the governing regulation. Pagination behavior is left to the schema. Complete enough for an agent to call and interpret, with only minor gaps such as result ordering.

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 (page, per_page, year, los_measure_id) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that measure and year are filterable, adding no format or constraint detail 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 (proposed levels of service), and goes further by defining the row granularity: one row per LoS measure and future year. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as list_los_measures, list_los_measurements and list_los_targets_history.

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 closing sentence 'Filter by measure or year' implies how to narrow results, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g. list_los_measures or get_los_proposed_target) and no stated exclusions. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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