Workbooks List Report Elements

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 structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no scoping/filtering semantics, no note on what an 'element' is or how results are ordered. It contributes no behavioral context the annotations don't already supply.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is structurally clean. But the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency — the sentence does not carry enough information to be useful.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the definition is incomplete for the task: no sibling disambiguation among the many report-scoped list tools, and a required parameter with 0% schema coverage that the description never explains.

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% for the single required parameter report_id, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it. 'In a report' only weakly implies the identifier's role and gives no format, source, or retrieval hint, leaving the parameter effectively undocumented.

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?

The description names a verb (List) and a resource (elements in a report), so the basic purpose is conveyed. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name, and 'elements' is never defined relative to sibling report sub-resources such as workbooks_list_report_sources, workbooks_list_report_queries, or workbooks_list_report_lineage, so an agent cannot disambiguate from the description alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or alternatives, and no indication of how this differs from the many other report-listing siblings. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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