search_measures

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral detail: it searches specific named fields and ignores case and accents. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict search behavior without over-explaining. A minor gap is the lack of any mention of result ordering or pagination, but given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses two short paragraphs, the first stating the action, the second detailing the fields and the case-insensitivity. There is no fluff, though slightly more structure (e.g., separating the parameter notes) would improve readability. Still, it is appropriately sized.

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?

The description explains the search scope and case handling, which covers the core behavior. However, it omits any explanation of the optional parameters (limit, cursor, compact, include_norm_text) and does not mention pagination behavior. Given that an output schema exists, return values are not needed, but the parameter semantics are an important gap. Overall, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. However, it only implicitly covers `query` and never mentions `limit`, `cursor`, `compact`, or `include_norm_text`. The agent may not know what `compact` does or whether `include_norm_text` affects the search scope. This is a significant gap for a tool with five parameters.

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 ('Busca' = search) and resource ('medidas' = measures), and enumerates the specific fields searched (code, title, description, norm_text, text). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_measures (which lists) and get_measure (which retrieves a single record). The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. The use case is implied by the verb 'search' and the field list, but there is no direct guidance on when to choose this over list_measures or get_measure. It is adequate but relies on inference.

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