list_measures

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it clarifies that certain fields are substring matches, and it explains the meaning of missing quantified effect values. This goes beyond the basic search action and helps avoid misinterpretation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by targeted parameter clarifications. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite providing useful caveats, the description is incomplete for a 9-parameter tool. Several parameters are not explained, and there is no mention of result ordering, pagination, or how max_rows is applied. The output schema may cover returns, but usage guidance is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for country and status with examples, and explains matching semantics for four fields. However, max_rows, start_year, and necp_reference remain undocumented, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 searches the Policies and Measures catalogue, with a specific scope ('descriptive, not a ranking source'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_measure by indicating a catalogue search/list operation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage through search fields, but does not state exclusions or when to prefer sibling tools like get_measure or query_sql.

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