dl_workbook_entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the page ceiling (up to 200 per page) and the caveat that a partial listing cannot prove absence. It does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or return format, so it is moderate value on top of the annotations.

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?

Purpose and pagination are front-loaded, and the alternative/caveat sentence earns its place. However, the middle sentence ('Retains scope, renderer subtype, typed identity and completeness') is dense jargon whose meaning is not clear, weakening otherwise tight structure.

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?

With no output schema, the description is expected to convey more about the return shape, but it offers only the cryptic 'Retains scope, renderer subtype, typed identity and completeness.' Annotations cover safety, and the alternative routing is present, so it is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about parameter usage and result structure.

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 only 25%, so the description is expected to compensate, but it does not. It only restates the page size ('up to 200 per page') that the schema already caps, and says nothing about max_pages, workbook_id, or how continuation should be obtained, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Discover workbook entries') plus the pagination scope, and explicitly names the sibling it is not ('A known target uses dl_object_get directly'). This lets an agent distinguish it from dl_object_get without opening the schema, though the phrase 'establish inventory completeness' is somewhat jargon-heavy.

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?

It names an alternative (dl_object_get) and the condition that selects it (when the target is already known), and states the key caveat that 'a partial listing cannot prove absence.' There is no explicit prerequisite or exclusion otherwise, but the routing guidance is clear.

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