List DataLens members

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral detail: results are auto-paginated and capped at the configured item cap unless ``limit`` is supplied.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the resource definition leads and the workflow hint follows. Slightly dense with reStructuredText backticks, but each sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description does enough by defining what a member is, explaining the ``sub`` identifier, and noting pagination/cap behavior. Return-field detail beyond that is left implicit, a minor gap for a list tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including the limit/cap semantics. The description reinforces the cap behavior and introduces the ``sub`` concept, but adds little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('users, groups and service accounts of the organization') and immediately situates it relative to the access-binding update siblings. An agent can distinguish it from the many other datalens list tools without inspecting the schema.

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?

Gives concrete workflow context: use this to find a member's ``sub`` before calling ``collections_access_bindings_update`` or ``workbooks_access_bindings_update``. It names the dependent tools and the reason to use it, though it offers no explicit when-not or alternative for listing members.

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