get_measure_readings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get readings') but doesn't cover critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of readings with timestamps). This is a significant gap for a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or how parameters like 'latest', 'today', and date ranges interact. For a data retrieval tool with many filtering options, more context is needed to guide effective usage.

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 parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering by 'measurement type', which aligns with the 'measure_id' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context like parameter interactions or default behaviors.

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 ('Get') and resource ('readings for a specific measurement type'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_readings' or 'get_station_readings', which might have overlapping functionality, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_readings' or 'get_station_readings'. The description implies usage for a specific measurement type but doesn't specify exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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