Workbooks Get Report Element Query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral nuance — the SQL is *generated by Sigma*, implying compiled/warehouse SQL rather than user-authored text — but says nothing about what happens for non-query elements or elements that cannot be compiled.

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. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than optimal density.

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 values needn't be explained, and the read-only annotations cover safety. Still, for a getter whose two parameters are entirely undocumented, the agent lacks ID provenance, sibling disambiguation, and error-condition context, leaving the definition only minimally sufficient.

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% and both parameters (report_id, element_id) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not say where element_id comes from (e.g. workbooks_list_report_elements) or that the two IDs are hierarchically related, so it adds no meaning beyond the parameter names.

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?

Specific verb (get) + resource (SQL query generated for a report element), which is clearer than the many list_* siblings in the workbooks family. However, it does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling elements_get_element_query, leaving ambiguity about report-element vs workbook-element scope.

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 versus workbooks_list_report_queries or elements_get_element_query, no prerequisites (e.g. the element must actually be a query element), and no note about permissions or missing-SQL cases. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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