Get dimensions & metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note — the catalogue is large, so results should be narrowed with `search` — but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or result shape.

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?

Two tight sentences: the capability and its scope come first, the `search` advice second. No filler, no restating the title or parameter names at length.

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 read-only catalogue listing with no output schema, the description tells the agent what comes back (API names, including custom ones) and how to keep the result manageable. It is nearly complete; only the meaning of `kind` values is left unaddressed.

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 60%, so the description must compensate somewhat. It explains the `search` parameter's purpose and shows a custom-definition naming example ('customEvent:plan_type'), but it never mentions the `kind` enum, `customOnly`, or `includeDescriptions`, leaving part of the parameter surface to the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List the dimension and metric API names available for reports on a property,' and clarifies scope by including the property's custom definitions with a concrete example. It naturally separates itself from the narrower siblings list_custom_dimensions and list_custom_metrics because it covers the whole catalogue.

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 advises using `search` to narrow the large catalogue, which is practical guidance, but it never states when to prefer this tool over list_custom_dimensions/list_custom_metrics or the discovery workflow with run_report. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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