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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation, and the description confirms it lists values. It adds useful context about the IRI-filtering purpose, but it does not describe pagination, language handling, or the shape of the returned values.

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 a single focused sentence with useful examples and a clear usage hint. The trailing 'hint.' adds little value, but overall there is no waste or excessive length.

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 and sparse parameter documentation, the description carries a heavy burden. It clarifies the core use case but omits return value details, cube parameter meaning, and limit/language behavior, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 the 'dimension' parameter documented. The description mentions IRI-based filtering but does not explain the required 'cube' parameter, the optional 'lang', or 'limit' semantics, leaving agents to guess at critical inputs.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List the values one dimension takes', reinforced by concrete examples (Kantone, Abstimmungstypen, Geschäftsstände). It also signals the tool's specific purpose, filtering by IRI rather than text, which distinguishes it from related lookup tools.

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 gives an explicit usage directive: 'use to filter by IRI instead of by text.' This tells an agent when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

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