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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: a hard cap of at most 2000 rows. It does not say whether hitting that cap truncates silently or errors, and it says nothing about pagination or response shape.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the row limit. Nothing is redundant and every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

Given four parameters, a nested filters object, and no output schema, the description should say more about what a returned row looks like and what happens when the 2000-row limit is exceeded. It does correctly cover the input side and the size constraint, so it is adequate but with clear gaps on the output/truncation side.

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%, so all four parameters including the nested filters map are already documented with patterns and examples. The description reinforces the meaning of filters (dimension codes obtained from get_dataset) and of period, but adds no format details, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States the specific resource (dataset values) and the two things that scope it: dimension codes and period. It also points at get_dataset as the source of the codes, which separates it from the sibling that only describes datasets. It falls short of a 5 only because it never names a sibling alternative for retrieving values differently.

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 parenthetical '(from get_dataset)' implicitly tells the agent to fetch dimension codes first, which is real workflow guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of prerequisites such as needing valid codes, and no routing to any sibling.

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