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

The description's 'Read' is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation and implies no side effects. It does not add further behavioral details such as pagination, error behavior, or authentication requirements, but none contradict the annotation.

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 to the point, but the parenthetical filter list and the stray 'norm.' are awkward and reduce clarity. A cleaner sentence separating examples from the core instruction would improve structure.

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 simple read operation, the description plus schema gives enough context to attempt a call, but it is missing details about the shape of returned rows, default limits, and how filters combine. The lack of an output schema or return description leaves some ambiguity.

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?

The schema describes filters and dimensions, but cube, lang, limit, and offset are undocumented in the schema, and the tool description only lists example filter dimensions without explaining the required cube parameter or the pagination/language parameters. With only 33% schema description coverage, the description does not sufficiently compensate.

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 action ('Read') and object ('a cube's rows'), and indicates it returns observation figures. The parenthetical filter examples and trailing 'norm.' add noise but do not obscure the core purpose.

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 for the figures themselves' gives some implied guidance that this tool returns observation data rather than metadata, but it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools such as lindas.describe_cube or lindas.dimension_values, nor 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.