wafeq_units_of_measure_list

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description merely repeats 'READ-ONLY' and adds the HTTP method/path, but it does not disclose any new behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, response characteristics, auth requirements, or ordering defaults.

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 short and puts the resource and path up front, but 'List unit of measures' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a list of unit of measures' are near-duplicates. The emoji/label line also repeats the read-only annotation, adding mild redundancy.

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 simple list endpoint with no output schema, the description gives enough context: it names the resource, the operation, and the path, while the input schema fully documents pagination parameters and annotations cover the safety profile. It could additionally clarify the difference from wafeq_item_units_of_measure_list, but that is a minor gap.

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%: both page and page_size already have clear descriptions, and both are optional. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score applies.

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 operation ('List', 'retrieving a list') and the resource ('unit of measures'), and also gives the HTTP path GET /units-of-measure/. It is not a tautology and distinguishes list from retrieve semantics, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named wafeq_item_units_of_measure_list sibling.

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 implies it should be used to fetch the collection of unit-of-measure records, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to related siblings such as wafeq_units_of_measure_retrieve or wafeq_item_units_of_measure_list.

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