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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds that the call returns valid codes and ids, a small amount of output context, but says nothing about pagination, match semantics, or behavior when query/dimension are omitted.

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?

A single compact sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient but arguably too terse for the amount of undocumented surface it must carry.

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 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and three free-form parameters, the description should do more explaining. It conveys the discovery intent but leaves an agent guessing about argument formats and result shape.

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 description coverage is 0% and the three parameters (limit, query, dimension) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description mentions 'dimension hierarchies' conceptually but never explains whether query supports wildcards, what dimension values are accepted, or what limit defaults to.

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 (search) and resource (dimension hierarchies) and gives concrete examples (cost centres, accounts), making the target domain clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_dimensions, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'before composing a query' implies the workflow slot (discovery step preceding query composition), which is useful implied usage. However, it never names alternatives such as list_dimensions or list_variants, nor states when not to use this tool, so guidance remains implicit.

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