Workbooks List Report Queries

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, non-destructive read, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: it auto-follows pagination to the last page and returns entries from every page with nextPageToken null. That tells the agent not to expect a cursor to resume from. It doesn't mention result-size or rate considerations, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The second sentence is slightly dense ('returns the keys of Sigma's page: entries...') but every clause carries information about the return shape.

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 need not be re-explained, and the description still clarifies the pagination-collapsed result shape. The only gap is the undocumented report_id, which is largely self-evident for a one-parameter read tool.

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 coverage is 0% for the single report_id parameter, so the description must carry that meaning. 'In a report' implies the ID scopes to a report, which is inferable from the name but never stated explicitly (format, where to obtain it). Adequate but no meaningful addition beyond the schema.

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 SQL queries in a report.' An agent can tell it apart from report-element or column listing tools by the 'queries' resource. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. With siblings like workbooks_get_report_element_query and elements_list_workbook_queries in the same namespace, an agent gets no help deciding which query-listing tool to call.

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