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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds useful workflow context ('use before reading rows'). However, it does not disclose matching behavior, whether the search is exact or partial, or what the result looks like. This is acceptable but not deeply transparent.

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 very short and front-loads the core purpose in one sentence. The trailing 'hint.' adds little value and reads as noise, but otherwise every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's role.

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?

The core usage is clear enough for a basic call: provide a word of the cube's name. However, there is no output schema and the description does not say what is returned or how the result feeds into later row-reading steps. The phrase 'behind a question' is also slightly ambiguous, and the optional parameters remain unexplained.

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 33%, so the description needs to compensate for the undocumented lang and limit parameters, but it does not. It re-emphasizes that query is a word of the cube's name, which the schema already states, and adds no meaning for limit or lang.

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 specific action — find the relevant cube — using a word of the cube's name, and immediately distinguishes this lookup from row-reading tools. The examples («Volksinitiative», «Petition», «Parteienregister») make the target resource and usage concrete. It clearly positions itself within the lindas family as a discovery step, not a data-access step.

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 phrase 'use before reading rows' gives explicit workflow guidance about when this tool should be called. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools such as lindas.list_cubes or lindas.describe_cube, but the timing instruction provides strong contextual direction.

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