Workbooks List All Reports

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: pagination is followed automatically, signaling that an agent gets the full result set in one call and may face a large/slow response. It stops short of noting cost, rate limits, or result-size behavior.

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 sentence with no waste, front-loading both the resource and the scope (ALL, organization) before the pagination note. Every clause carries distinct 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 parameters and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and it correctly covers scope and pagination. The only real gap is guidance on when to prefer the filtered report list, which is a minor omission for such a simple call.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the sentence misrepresents the parameterless shape.

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 (list reports) plus an explicit scope (ALL, organization-wide), which separates it from the filtered sibling workbooks_list_reports. It never names that sibling outright, so the differentiation must be inferred from the ALL/organization scoping rather than being spelled out.

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?

The description implies the use case (fetch the complete set without manual paging), and the ALL-organization framing suggests it is the exhaustive variant. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never points to workbooks_list_reports as the lighter, filtered alternative.

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