Workbooks List Workbook Grants

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, but the description adds no behavioral context at all: no indication of whether results are paginated, whether inherited/workspace grants are included, or what the grant listing is scoped to. It purely restates the name.

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 with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately terse for the amount of information conveyed, though the terseness is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 needn't be explained, and the annotations cover the read-only safety profile. However, for a permission-listing tool sitting among several grant-related siblings, the description omits scope, pagination, and alternative-tool routing, leaving it minimally viable.

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% for the single workbook_id parameter, and the description does not compensate by explaining identifier format or how to obtain it. The parameter is inferable from its name, which keeps this above a 1, but no meaning is added 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List permission grants on a workbook'), which is unambiguous and matches the tool name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related sibling workbooks_grant_workbook_access (the write counterpart) or workspace_list_workspace_grants, leaving sibling disambiguation to the name alone.

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 workbooks_grant_workbook_access, admin_list_grants, or workspace_list_workspace_grants. Nothing states prerequisites, scope (workbook-level vs inherited workspace grants), or exclusions.

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