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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the verb 'Show' is consistent with a read operation, so there is no contradiction. The description adds scoping context (single IRI, which entity kinds are addressable) but discloses nothing about result size, pagination, or other behavior of the 'everything' dump. With the safety profile already carried by annotations, the description meets the lower bar but adds only modest behavioral context.

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 front-loaded sentence that packs in the operation, scope, use case, and examples with no wasted prose. The trailing 'norm.' is unexplained noise that should be removed or translated, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

Adequate for a simple read tool with a readOnly annotation and one required parameter, covering what it does and when to use it. However, with no output schema present, the description should hint at the return shape, and the relationship to the near-identically named sibling lindas.describe_cube is left unclarified.

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 only 25%; lang, limit, and offset are undocumented in both the schema and the tool description. The entity examples (cube, observation, Kanton) add meaning to the required iri parameter beyond the schema's generic 'Any IRI,' and the schema's note that no host is fetched is helpful, but the description does not compensate for the three undocumented parameters.

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 ('Show everything the holding says about one IRI') with concrete entity examples (cube, observation, Kanton), giving an agent a clear picture of what the tool does. The phrase 'use to follow an address you were handed' signals a lookup-by-IRI operation, implicitly distinct from search/list siblings like lindas.find_cube or lindas.list_cubes. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, and the trailing 'norm.' adds noise.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: follow an address (IRI) you were handed, i.e., when you already hold the identifier. This implies the alternative — search or list tools when you lack the IRI — without naming them or stating exclusions, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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