dl_workbooks_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral detail beyond them — that results carry a completeness marker and pagination is bounded — which is genuinely useful context for a listing call. It stops short of explaining what the marker is or what happens when bounds are hit.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scoping information is stated first. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in the other dimensions rather than offsetting them.

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?

For a low-complexity list tool the annotations cover safety, but with no output schema the "explicit completeness marker" is never named or described, so an agent cannot know which field signals truncation. Combined with 0% schema coverage on the two pagination parameters, an agent lacks what it needs to page safely.

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%, so both max_pages and page_size are undocumented literals with only defaults and min/max ranges. The phrase "bounded pagination" gestures at these two knobs but never defines their meaning, defaults, or the trade-off between page count and page size, leaving the schema to carry semantics it does not carry.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ("List DataLens workbooks") and the pagination behavior, which is enough to separate it from write-oriented siblings like dl_object_create or dl_object_update. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the adjacent read sibling dl_workbook_entries.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dl_workbook_entries, dl_object_get, or dl_object_relations, and no prerequisites or exclusions. "Bounded pagination" hints at a calling context but stops short of guidance.

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