Workbooks List Report Queries

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 nothing beyond that—no return format, pagination, authorization requirements, or other behavioral context—so it does not earn a higher score despite the lower bar.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is no filler, redundancy, or trailing detail, making it maximally efficient.

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 simple read-only tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it says what is listed and where. However, it omits usage guidance and parameter semantics, leaving gaps that an agent might need for confident invocation.

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 the sole parameter, report_id, is undocumented in the schema. The description only repeats the word 'report' from the tool's context, adding no format, example, or identifier semantics beyond what the schema already implies.

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 (List) and resource (SQL queries in a report), making the tool's function immediately clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling workbook-query tool by scoping to reports, but does not explicitly name alternatives or reinforce the distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workbooks_list_report_elements, workbooks_list_report_sources, or elements_list_workbook_queries. Usage is only inferable from the purpose statement, with no prerequisites or exclusions provided.

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