ins_tempo_matrix_dimensions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that dimension ordering and option IDs are matrix-specific and cannot be guessed, which justifies the mandatory pre-call. It implies a read-only metadata lookup but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or what happens with an invalid matrix_code, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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?

Three sentences carry exactly the needed information: what the tool returns, when it must be called, and where to obtain its input. There is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

Given a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers the return content, the mandatory ordering relative to ins_tempo_query(), and the upstream way to discover matrix codes, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 only provides a string parameter named matrix_code, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that matrix_code identifies a single matrix and by telling the agent to find codes via ins_tempo_browse(). It does not provide an example or format hint, but the source of valid values is clear.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Get one INS statistics matrix's title and every selectable dimension'. It goes beyond a generic action by specifying the exact output (option labels and IDs) and by implicitly distinguishing this metadata-discovery tool from ins_tempo_query() and ins_tempo_browse().

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?

It states an explicit workflow rule: 'ALWAYS call this before ins_tempo_query()', explains why (dimension order and option IDs vary per matrix and can't be guessed), and directs the agent to ins_tempo_browse() for finding matrix codes. This is exceptional usage guidance.

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