get_dimension_codes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it explains pagination via limit/offset, the agency_id defaulting to the session endpoint, and endpoint targeting 'for this call only.' The read-only nature is signaled by 'Get,' though it does not explicitly state safety or permissions.

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 well-structured docstring: a one-line purpose, a brief use-case context, an Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence contributes information, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 the output schema exists, the return summary suffices. The description covers purpose, usage scenario, every parameter with semantics, pagination, endpoint override behavior, and the relationship to full codelists. This is complete for a 6-parameter tool with no 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains all 6 parameters, including defaults (limit=50, offset=0), the meaning of agency_id and endpoint, and pagination semantics, adding substantial meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 opening line, 'Get codes for a specific dimension of a dataflow,' clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It further distinguishes itself from siblings like get_codelist by explaining that it enables drilling down into specific dimensions without loading all codelists at once.

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 for when to use the tool: 'drilling down into specific dimensions' and 'finding valid values for a particular dimension in your data query.' It implies the alternative of loading full codelists but does not explicitly name a sibling tool or state when not to use this tool, so it stops 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.