rb209_measurement_method

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the endpoint calculates an SNS index, with no mention of side effects, prerequisites, conditional input combinations, or response behavior. The word 'calculate' implies computation, but the description gives almost no operational detail beyond that.

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 with the method, endpoint, purpose, and geographic scope front-loaded. There is no filler. The endpoint path partially repeats the tool name, but the sentence remains tight and scannable.

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?

The tool has a single required nested body with multiple conditional sub-objects and no output schema, making the one-sentence description insufficient. The description does not explain the step-based workflow, when each input variant is relevant, or what the endpoint returns. The rich schema covers parameter details but not the overall invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, and every parameter has a detailed description including units, ranges, and conditional rules. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies. The schema already carries the semantic load.

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 verb 'calculate', the resource 'sns index', and the method 'measurement method'. The geographic qualifier 'in England & Wales' distinguishes it from the sibling rb209_measurement_scotland_measurement_method, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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 gives clear geographic context by explicitly limiting the tool to England & Wales, which implies the Scotland variant is not the right choice. However, it does not name that alternative or state when to prefer this tool over the other measurement-related sibling tools. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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