get_all_cubes_list_lite

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals important behaviors: disables SSL verification, excludes dimension/footnote info, paginates with defaults, and mandates source citation. However, it omits details about response structure or error semantics, which would further enhance transparency.

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 well-structured: it opens with the main purpose, then key caveats, then pagination details, followed by a clear alternative, and ends with an important citation requirement. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the tool's scope (inventory of tables), exclusions (dimension/footnote), pagination behavior, a relevant alternative, and a required citation practice. No critical gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description only reinforces the existing parameter documentation (offset/limit for pagination). It adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's primary function: 'Provides a complete inventory of data tables available via the API', and differentiates it from siblings by noting it excludes dimension/footnote information ('lighter version'). It also explicitly mentions the corresponding endpoint, reinforcing its specific 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 description provides explicit usage guidance by stating 'Prefer search_cubes_by_title if you know what you're looking for,' which names an alternative and gives a clear condition for choosing it. It also explains pagination usage with offset/limit, giving actionable context.

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