get_measure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read. The description adds the exact-match behavior, which is useful context beyond the schema, but it does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., not-found behavior, error handling). Given the annotations carry the safety profile, the description provides modest additional value.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action (get by exact code) and immediately provides an illustrative example, making every word earn its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are documented separately. The tool is simple (one parameter, exact lookup), and the description explains the input format clearly. It does not address not-found behavior, but for a get-by-code tool with read-only annotations, the information provided is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, and there is only one parameter (code). The description gives a concrete example ('org.1') and clarifies that the code must be exact, adding meaning beyond the bare schema property. For a single-parameter tool, this compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Obtiene una medida de seguridad' (gets a security measure) and specifies the lookup by exact code ('por su código exacto'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_measures (list all) and search_measures (fuzzy search), so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 phrase 'por su código exacto' implies the tool should be used when the exact measure code is known, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations when to prefer other tools (e.g., search_measures for partial matches), so no exclusions are stated.

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