list_measurements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses snapshotted keyset pagination, an id ceiling pinned by the first page, cursor binding to exact filters and id-desc order, concurrency guarantees ('Concurrent filings cannot make a sweep repeat or skip a row'), and rejection of replay under changed filters. It also clarifies row identity vs content identity for historical rows.

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?

Five sentences pack purpose, identity semantics, pagination behavior, concurrency guarantees, and the filter list with no filler. The most decision-relevant information (newest-first sweep) is front-loaded.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it defines the exact row identity, content identity, filter set, cursor constraints, and consistency behavior. An agent can select and correctly invoke this tool without additional context.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds only a consolidated filter list and the role enum values, which restate the schema; it does not materially deepen parameter semantics.

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 opening phrase 'The public evidence corpus, newest first — every visible measurement' names the resource and the list operation, and 'swept without walking each proposal' clarifies its batch-scan purpose. This distinguishes it from singular get_measurement and proposal-scoped siblings.

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?

It tells the agent when to use this tool: to sweep all visible measurements without iterating proposals. It also gives operational directives for pagination ('Follow next_cursor verbatim') and warns against replaying with changed filters. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool to use in other cases, but the use case is clearly scoped.

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