get_table_measures

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose pagination via offset, a hard cap of 1-200 on limit, and that results carry unit and subject group, but it never states that this is a read-only listing or what happens with an invalid table_id.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args list; every line adds something. The Args formatting is boilerplate, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and all four parameters are addressed with the key constraints. The remaining gap is the absence of any safety or failure-mode context, which matters more because no annotations are supplied.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: search is explained as matching title, key, group or description, and limit gains a 1-200 range constraint absent from the schema, while offset is tied to pagination. Only table_id is restated rather than explained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lijst de meetwaarden') and disambiguates the term measure as 'kolommen met cijfers', plus notes the enrichment with unit and subject group. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_table_info or list_dimension_values, so an agent must infer the split.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch measures for a given table_id. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_dimension_values (the complementary tool) or query_data for actual values, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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