Workbooks List Report Schedules

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 without the description. The description adds the useful scoping detail that results are schedule/export entries tied to a report, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result volume. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 seven-word sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded after the verb. It is efficient, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise given the gaps in usage and parameter guidance.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-parameter list tool the description is minimally adequate, but it omits pagination or volume expectations that matter for a list operation in an open-world system.

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% and report_id has no description, but the phrase 'for a report' minimally implies that report_id identifies the target report. That is the extent of the added meaning; nothing about format, expected ID shape, or behavior on an unknown ID is provided.

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 ('scheduled exports for a report'), which cleanly separates it from workbook-level siblings like workbooks_list_workbook_schedules and from the mutation sibling workbooks_create_report_schedule. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternative tools such as workbooks_list_workbook_schedules or workbooks_list_report_sources. The agent must infer that this is the report-scoped schedule listing.

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