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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: the path must end in '.px' and the return includes dimension codes, labels, and value lists. No contradictions.

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 sentences with no wasted words. States purpose, input requirement, and return value in a compact, front-loaded manner.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations covering safety, the description fully explains what the tool does, what input it expects, and what output it provides (dimension codes, labels, value lists). It also connects to the sibling query_table tool, making its role clear.

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 single parameter 'path' is described both in the schema (with an example) and in the tool description (with the constraint that it must end in '.px'). The description adds clarity beyond the schema's example.

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 clearly states the tool fetches dimension definitions and valid values for a PxWeb table, specifies the required path format ending in '.px', and provides an example. This distinguishes it from siblings like query_table which would use this data.

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 explains when to use the tool (to get dimension info for building a query_table body) and what input is required (full path ending in .px). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools is clear.

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