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

Read-only annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds a useful behavioral hint that the returned record 'may carry more' than the declared dimensions. Still, it says nothing about pagination, error behavior, or language handling, leaving gaps not covered by annotations.

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 brief and mostly front-loaded, which is good, but the cryptic trailing 'norm.' adds confusion rather than value. It is terse to the point of under-specification.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description omits return shape, parameter roles, and any relationship to similar tools. It only offers a minimal use-case sentence, which is not enough for an agent to invoke it confidently in all expected scenarios.

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%, with only 'cube' documented. The description does not explain 'lang', 'limit', or 'offset', and the mention of 'filters' doesn't map clearly to these parameters. It fails to compensate for the sparse schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('cube'), and names the content ('declared dimensions and profile'). It conveys the core function clearly, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similarly named sibling lindas.describe.

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?

It gives a practical use case ('use to learn the filters a question needs'), which implies context for when to call it. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance remains somewhat implicit.

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