jd_get_field_operation_measurements

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond them: the branching return shape (a `measurements` collection vs. a single measurement object when measurement_type is given) and the categories of data returned. It does not discuss pagination or limits, but the output schema partly covers structure.

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 with the core purpose, then return shape, then the parameter provenance. Three sentences, each carrying weight, with only mild redundancy between the description and the param descriptions for operation_id.

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, the description need not explain return formatting, yet it still conveys the conditional shape and data categories. Combined with readOnly/openWorld annotations, the agent has enough to invoke correctly; only cross-tool alternatives remain unaddressed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it tells the agent the operation_id's provenance and that a valid measurement_type value (e.g. HarvestYield) is discoverable by calling without the parameter ('as listed by this tool'). That discovery hint goes beyond the schema text.

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 ('Get the measurement totals of one field operation') and names the exact fields returned (area, material, rate totals and averages, yield). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like jd_list_field_operations, which it references only as the source of the operation_id.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent on how to obtain operation_id ('comes from the id of an item returned by jd_list_field_operations') and explains the measurement_type conditional (omit to list every type). However, it does not name an alternative tool for the case where the agent might want measurements another way, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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