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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: request limits, realtime fields, timezone, data_from, and ingest_lag_seconds. It stops short of describing pagination or failure behavior, so 4 rather than 5.

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 a compact enumeration of what is returned. The second sentence's return-value list is slightly long given an output schema exists, but nothing 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?

For a two-parameter read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, this covers scoping and content well. The only minor gap is that multi-server behavior is left entirely to the schema rather than acknowledged.

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% and documents both container_id and the multi-server server_name requirement. The description only reinforces container scoping ('for one container') and adds no syntax or format detail 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 a specific verb and resource (lists dimensions and metrics) and ties the scope to run_report's accepted fields for one container. The relation to run_report cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling that actually executes reports.

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 'that run_report accepts' makes the natural usage (discovering valid fields before calling run_report) evident, and the scope ('for one container') clarifies context. No explicit when-not or named alternatives, keeping it short of a 5.

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