Workbooks List Workbook Lineage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no indication of lineage direction (upstream vs downstream), depth, or whether the workbook must exist, so it does not earn credit above the annotation baseline.

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 zero waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise – the brevity costs useful context.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover safety for this simple one-parameter read. Still, for a lineage tool the description never says what kind of lineage graph is returned, leaving it minimally adequate.

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 string parameter, so the description carries the burden; 'for a workbook' only loosely maps workbook_id to a workbook identifier. It adds marginal meaning but no format, ID-source, or required-ness detail.

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 (data lineage) scoped to a workbook, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from the lineage siblings (workbooks_list_report_lineage, datasets_list_data_model_lineage), though the name's 'workbook' prefix carries that distinction.

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 over the other lineage tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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