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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read; the description adds that it shows declared dimensions/profile and that the record may carry more fields, which is useful partial-output context. It does not discuss pagination/localization behavior of lang/limit/offset, but for a read-only metadata tool the annotation lowers the burden.

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 short and mostly front-loaded, but the trailing 'hint.' fragment and the ambiguous clause 'the record may carry more' create structural confusion. It would earn a higher score with a cleaner two-sentence format.

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 read-only metadata tool, the description conveys the core purpose and a practical use case, and readOnlyHint covers side-effect concerns. However, with no output schema and three undocumented optional parameters, the description leaves an agent to guess how lang/limit/offset affect the call and what the response contains beyond 'declared dimensions and profile.'

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%, and the description does not compensate: lang, limit, and offset are left with no explanation beyond their field names. The cube parameter is covered by the schema example, and 'dimensions and profile' hints at what is read, but most parameters remain semantically undocumented.

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 opens with a specific action and object: 'Show a cube's declared dimensions and profile.' It also indicates the purpose ('use to learn the filters a question needs'), which clarifies what the output is for. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling lindas tools, but the 'declared dimensions and profile' wording is distinct enough to identify the tool's resource and intent.

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?

'use to learn the filters a question needs' is a clear usage signal: call this when you need to discover required cube filters. It does not name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, but the guidance is explicit rather than merely implied.

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