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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so well by explicitly stating 'Reads only; refreshes nothing.' This gives the agent confidence that the tool is non-mutating, although it does not mention any potential limitations or failure modes.

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?

A single, compact sentence states the action, the resource, the output contents, and the read-only behavior. There is no redundancy or wasted wording, and important details are front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists exactly what the tool returns (names, step chain, load target, connections) and confirms it is non-mutating. For a zero-parameter list operation, this is sufficient for an agent to select and 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 parametershare, so the input schema already fully describes the invocation surface. The description is not required to explain any parameter semantics; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 begins with 'List Power Query queries in this workbook', a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the exact content included (names, step chain, load target, connections). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_explain or workbook_inspect.

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 a read-only overview use case and scopes the tool to the current workbook, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as query_explain or workbook_inspect. Usage context is implied rather than directly stated.

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