Workbooks List Shared Templates

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 and cross-org nature are largely covered. The description adds only the 'from other orgs' scope nuance, saying nothing about pagination, auth requirements, or result volume.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the resource and scope with no filler. It earns its place, though it is minimal enough that it could carry one more clause of guidance without bloat.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and a 0-param read-only list needs little more. The scope statement plus annotations make the definition essentially self-sufficient, with only routing guidance missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify 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?

Clear verb+resource ('List templates') with a scope qualifier ('shared with your organization from other orgs') that separates it from workbooks_list_templates. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the cross-org scope framing gives an agent enough to distinguish it.

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 'shared from other orgs' phrasing implies when this tool applies versus the general template list, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative (e.g. workbooks_list_templates, workbooks_accept_shared_template). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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