list_pa_breakdowns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation with potentially evolving data. The description adds minimal extra context (what breakdowns are for) but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination, authorization requirements, or potential performance characteristics. Given the strong annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single concise sentence, directly front-loaded with the action and object. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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-only list tool with two optional parameters (fully described in the schema) and no output schema, the description plus the annotations cover all necessary context. It clearly states what the tool returns and its purpose, and the safety profile is fully covered by annotations.

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%: both 'limit' and 'query' have description text in the schema. The tool description itself does not mention parameters, but since the schema already documents them, the description does not need to compensate. Baseline of 3 applies here.

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 function: 'List PA breakdowns (dimensions) available for segmenting indicator data.' The verb 'List' is specific, the resource 'PA breakdowns (dimensions)' is unambiguous, and the purpose 'segmenting indicator data' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pa_indicators (which lists indicators, not breakdowns) and create_pa_breakdown (which creates, not lists).

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 clear context by explaining that these breakdowns are used for segmenting indicator data, making it evident when to use this tool (when you need to know available dimensions for segmentation). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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