list_available_dimensions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds the return format (list of objects with api_name and description), which is useful. It does not contradict annotations, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as ordering, data source, or pagination. Given the simple nature and strong annotations, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that state the purpose and the return format. There is no filler or redundant content. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 tool is simple with no parameters, has robust annotations, and the description explains the return format, it is nearly complete for its purpose. It could optionally mention that 'GSC' means 'Google Search Console' or provide an example, but these are minor gaps. Overall, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Since there are no parameters to clarify, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description provides no misinformation.

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 all available GSC dimensions with their descriptions.' The verb 'List' is specific, the resource 'GSC dimensions' is precise, and it inherently distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_available_metrics' (metrics versus dimensions) and 'list_gsc_sites' (sites versus dimensions).

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 implies usage by clearly stating the tool lists dimensions, which is distinct from the sibling tools focused on metrics or sites. However, it does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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