surfmeter_search_measurements

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which already signal a safe, read-only, open-world operation. The description adds guidance on server-side filtering and .keyword usage, which is useful but not deeply behavioral. It doesn't disclose aspects like performance implications, use of scroll for large result sets, or how it handles indexing.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then key usage tips. Every word adds value, and it avoids redundancy with the schema. The structure is clear and efficient.

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 tool's complexity (Elasticsearch DSL) and a moderate parameter count (7), the description covers the core usage pattern (server-side filtering, .keyword) but is missing details like examples of common queries, explanation of scroll for large results, or how 'index_scope' restricts the family. However, the schema provides some descriptions for several params, partially compensating. The lack of output schema is acceptable as the description needn't explain returns.

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 43%, so the description must compensate for the 4 parameters potentially lacking schema descriptions. The description adds semantic guidance on the 'body' parameter (prefer object, use .keyword) which goes beyond the schema. It could detail the 'from'/'size' pagination semantics, but the .keyword hint is significant.

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 clearly states the tool is for searching and aggregating measurement documents using Elasticsearch Query DSL. It specifies the primary resource (measurement documents) and the action (search and aggregate). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like surfmeter_search_anomalies or surfmeter_search_actions, though the resource type is implied.

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 provides clear guidance on how to use the tool: prefer server-side filters/aggregations and use .keyword for exact text matching. It implies usage context for Elasticsearch querying but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives.

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