Workbooks List Shared Templates

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that pagination is followed to the last page, that entries are aggregated across all pages, that total comes from Sigma when sent, and that nextPage is always null / hasMore false. That aggregation behavior is non-obvious and worth documenting.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the pagination detail. The second sentence is dense and slightly jargon-heavy, but every clause conveys actual behavior rather than filler.

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, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the main open question an agent would have is pagination semantics, which the description answers clearly. Nothing essential is missing, though a pointer to the related sibling tools would round it out.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because there is nothing to parameterize.

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 with a scoping qualifier: 'templates shared with your organization from other orgs.' This distinguishes it from the sibling workbooks_list_templates (which presumably lists own-org templates), though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the 'shared from other orgs' qualifier. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or a named alternative such as workbooks_list_templates or workbooks_accept_shared_template, so the agent must infer when to reach for this tool.

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