Get dimension settings

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

The readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations already cover the safety profile, lowering the bar. The description adds a useful bit of behavior by naming the dimension types that can come back, but it says nothing about auth/permission needs, empty-result handling, or whether acceptLanguage affects the returned labels.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical enumeration is efficient. It is arguably too terse for a two-parameter tool, but nothing in the wording is wasted.

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 tool with no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description is too thin: return shape (a list? a map keyed by type?) and locale behavior are unaddressed. The only completeness win is the enumeration of possible dimension types.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions organizationNumber or acceptLanguage. The required org number and the language-preference parameter remain semantically undocumented anywhere, leaving the agent to guess at format and effect.

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 uses a specific verb ("Returns") and a precisely scoped resource (the organization's enabled dimension types), and it enumerates the possible dimension types (CostCenter/CostType/Project/ProjectType), which separates it from get_dimension_values. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with that sibling, but an agent can still tell settings/types apart from values.

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?

When to use it is only implied: you call this to discover which dimensions are enabled before fetching their values. The description says nothing about when not to use it, no prerequisites, and it does not point to get_dimension_values as the alternative for actual value data, so an agent must infer the split.

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