Elements List Workbook Queries

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

With readOnlyHint/destructiveHint already covering safety, the description adds real behavioral value: it auto-walks every page and returns consolidated entries, so the agent knows not to paginate and will see nextPage null / hasMore false. It stops short of mentioning permissions or limits on large workbooks.

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?

The core action is front-loaded in sentence one, and sentence two is dense but each detail about pagination and page keys is useful. The doubled-backtick formatting is slightly noisy but not verbose overall.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is optional, and the pagination notes make behavior unambiguous for a one-parameter read tool. Only the provenance/format of workbook_id is left unstated.

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?

Only one parameter, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description could have clarified where workbook_id comes from or its format but does not. The name is largely self-explanatory, so the gap is minor rather than damaging.

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: lists generated SQL queries for all elements in a workbook. The scope 'all elements in a workbook' implicitly separates it from the single-element sibling elements_get_element_query, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 is only implied by the scope of the noun phrase; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over elements_get_element_query (single element) or elements_list_workbook_sources, nor any prerequisite note about workbook access.

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