direct_get_dictionaries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is largely redundant. The genuine added value is the 'GeoRegions is large' size warning. Nothing is said about caching, volume of returned data, or how names are resolved, so the disclosure remains thin.

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 short fragments, no padding, with the resource list and the usage rule front-loaded. Slightly elliptical in places (no explicit verb, fragment-style sentences), but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required. For a one-parameter, read-only dictionary lookup with full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, workflow context, and a size caveat, leaving mainly the parameter format unspecified.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single 'names' array parameter is never mentioned by name; the parenthetical dictionary list implicitly hints at valid values but does not state that it is the accepted input, nor whether it is case-sensitive or batched. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but does not fully document the parameter.

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 the resource (reference dictionaries) and enumerates the concrete dictionaries returned (Currencies, GeoRegions, TimeZones, Constants, Interests, AdCategories). The verb is implied rather than stated, but an agent can immediately tell this is a read of static reference data, distinct from the many list_* siblings that return user-owned entities.

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?

Explicitly gives the use case: 'Use for region ids/min bids before forecasts or writes,' which ties it to the forecast/write workflow. It also warns that 'GeoRegions is large,' which is a useful narrowing caveat. No competing sibling is named, but there is no direct alternative dictionary tool.

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