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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds substantial behavioral context: bqName is immutable and set once at creation, status semantics for drafts vs published VDIMs, and the exact return fields. It also specifies that virtualDimensionId equals id, which is a non-obvious data model behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long but every sentence is purposeful. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains field relationships, usage rules, and ends with a concrete example. There is no fluff or repetition of schema content; the structure is logical and scannable.

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 no output schema, the description takes full responsibility for explaining return values, which it does explicitly (id, virtualDimensionId, name, bqName, description, status, computeStatus, tags, hasPendingDraft, draftValidation.ok). It also covers edge cases like draft vs published status, pagination behavior, and the bqName immutability pitfall. This is complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema already covers all parameter descriptions at 100% (baseline 3). The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, notably the immutability of bqName and the interpretation of status values (DRAFT vs COMPLETED). It also reiterates the limit cap of 100 and shows an example query, but does not deeply enhance every parameter; hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List virtual dimensions (custom cost axes) in the organization.' It clearly differentiates from the 'get' sibling by stating 'Call this before get when the user refers to a VDIM by name rather than id.' The example further anchors the purpose.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance against the sibling 'get' tool. It also explains how to use query filters, status filters (DRAFT vs COMPLETED), pagination, and the critical rule to always use bqName (not name) for groupBy/filterCel. This is actionable direction beyond generic listing.

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