Read a dimension

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no auth requirements, no not-found/error behavior, no indication of payload size or cost. It stays at the minimum viable level for an annotated read tool.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It loses a point because terms like "placements" and "intelligence label" are undefined jargon that may not be self-evident to an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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, the description usefully enumerates the returned sections, which is the main gap it needed to fill for a one-parameter read tool. It remains incomplete on error cases and on how to obtain valid dimension names, both of which an agent would need in practice.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents both accepted forms (integer 1-9 or a name such as "Agents and workflow"). The description contributes nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline 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 names the resource (a single dimension) and enumerates what the payload contains: coverage, why entries sit together, placement implications, and entries by intelligence label. That is specific enough to distinguish it from a flat listing, but the verb is elided ("One dimension:") and it never names the sibling list_dimensions that an agent might confuse it with.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this after list_dimensions, nothing distinguishes a shallow fetch from search_radar or get_entry, and nothing covers what happens when the dimension identifier is unknown. The agent must infer the call context entirely from the tool name.

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