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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it is a catalogue-level read that returns keys, labels and kind classification rather than members, which sets the correct expectation about result scope.

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 tightly constructed sentences, front-loaded with the primary action; the sibling hand-off comes second and nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields (keys, labels, kinds) and the kind taxonomy. For a zero-parameter, read-only catalogue tool this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters (100% trivial coverage), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies no filtering input is needed.

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 (list dimensions defined in the model) and enumerates what is returned (keys, labels, kinds). It also names the sibling search_hierarchy as the tool for the adjacent task, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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 scopes usage as catalogue metadata only and routes member-listing to search_hierarchy. It does not address when this catalogue view is preferable to the other list_* siblings (list_kpis, list_variants), but the main ambiguity for this tool is resolved.

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