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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds two non-obvious traits: it disables SSL verification and it paginates with a default of 100 cubes. It also imposes a citation obligation (pid + Title) on the final response, which is a real behavioral requirement not found in the 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?

Purpose is front-loaded and pagination guidance follows logically; the sentences are efficient. The citation boilerplate in caps is somewhat bulky for a tool description but does carry an actionable output requirement, so it earns most of its space.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does state the inventory scope and exclusions plus the pagination envelope. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though the actual record shape (fields returned per cube) is left implicit.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description restates the default-100 behavior and explains the offset/limit pairing as pagination, but adds no format or boundary details beyond the schema.

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+resource: a complete inventory of data tables/cubes, explicitly excluding dimension and footnote data ('lighter version'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_all_cubes_list. The mapping from 'data tables' to 'cubes' in the tool name is a small vocabulary hop but unambiguous in context.

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 to an alternative: 'Prefer search_cubes_by_title if you know what you're looking for.' Pagination guidance ('Use offset/limit to page through') further clarifies usage. It stops short of stating when this tool should NOT be used, keeping it just under a 5.

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