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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: default excludes expired dimension values, the DimId/name/value code/expiry shape of a row, and the underlying endpoint. It does not discuss result size limits or behavior beyond max_results, which is already in the schema.

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 tight sentences with the resource and row fields front-loaded; nothing is padded. The trailing 'POST /api/v2/getdimensions' is transport detail that adds little for an agent choosing a tool.

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 helpfully enumerates the returned fields, and both optional parameters are covered by the schema. Missing only guidance on when to prefer this over sibling list tools, but nothing required for a correct invocation is absent.

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 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema itself; baseline 3 applies. The description's restatement of all_values (including expired values) is consistent with but not additive to the schema wording.

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 the resource (accounting dimensions and their values) and even enumerates the returned fields (DimId, name, value code, expiry), which cleanly separates it from siblings like merit_list_accounts or merit_list_departments. The verb is only implied via the title rather than stated in the description, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this tool versus the other list_* tools, no prerequisites, and no mention of pagination strategy despite max_results. The only conditional hint is 'all_values = true also lists expired values', which is parameter behavior rather than usage guidance.

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