List the roles on a DataLens shared entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the description's job is supplementary. It does add real behavior: results are auto-paginated, and non-shared or unknown entry ids return an empty list rather than an error, which is valuable edge-case disclosure beyond 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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the edge-case caveat follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and idempotent/readOnly annotations, this covers what an agent needs, including the empty-list behavior. No output schema exists, but as a straightforward list result that is acceptable.

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 entry_id, limit, and get_inherited_bindings are all documented in the schema. The description only loosely gestures at parameters ('auto-paginated' relates to limit) and adds no format or syntax beyond the schema, so the 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 outcome ('who has which role') on a specific resource ('a shared entry'), so an agent knows it is the access-bindings lister for shared entries. It only implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling listers like datalens_workbooks_access_bindings_list and datalens_collections_access_bindings_list via the qualifier 'shared entry'.

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?

Usage context is implied by the 'who has which role' framing, and it adds a useful edge-case note about workbook-resident or unknown ids. But it never states when to prefer this over the workbooks/collections variants nor any prerequisites, leaving selection to inference.

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