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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively communicates the tool's behavior: it is a read operation that returns detailed measurement data. It specifies the hash prefix requirement (>=12 hex chars) and the exact data payload, providing clear behavioral context.

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 a single sentence that efficiently lists the key data returned, but it is slightly dense with multiple data points which could be structured for easier parsing.

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?

Given the single parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately details the tool's purpose and the nature of its return data. However, it could specify that the output is likely a JSON object or structure, which would improve completeness.

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 the schema already documents the 'hash' parameter. The description clarifies the prefix requirement ('full or >=12-char prefix') but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 includes the specific verb 'get' and the resource 'measurement by manifest-hash prefix', and lists the exact data returned (manifest verbatim, per-member results, replication chain, replicate-POST kit). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'submit_measurement' or 'get_register'.

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 description implies the tool is used to retrieve a specific measurement by a hash prefix, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_history' or 'get_changelog', nor does it specify when not to use it.

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