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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by stating 'no auth required' and identifying the data source (sdmx.ine.gob.cl). This goes beyond the structured annotations and provides useful operational context without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Get the dimensions and valid codes'), followed by an example and usage context. No unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers what it does, how to use it, the source, and auth requirements. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the parameter is already well documented. The description reinforces the parameter's purpose and adds detail about dimension types (area, frequency, indicator, breakdown). This adds meaning beyond the schema's description of the dataflow_id.

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 retrieves dimensions and valid codes for a SIMEL dataflow_id, with a concrete example ('DF_NOCU_SEXO'). It also distinguishes its purpose from data retrieval by noting it's for interpreting dimension labels returned by ine-chile.data, differentiating it from siblings like ine-chile.reference.dataflows and ine-chile.series.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 explicitly says 'Use this to interpret the dimension labels returned by ine-chile.data,' providing a clear when-to-use scenario. It also implies a workflow (obtain dataflows first, then get structure), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives by name.

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