get_related_workbooks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return size ('up to 20'), the return contents (titles, authors, view counts, thumbnails, URLs), and a key constraint (workbook name only, not full path). It does not mention error behavior or rate limits, but for a simple read-only retrieval, this is adequate and non-misleading.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes an example and use case without unnecessary detail. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a tool with only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and how to provide input. It does not explain error cases, but the provided information is sufficient for basic usage.

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 input schema already includes descriptions for both parameters (count and workbookName). The description adds a helpful example ('RunningforOlympicGold') and clarifies that only the workbook name is required, which compensates for any ambiguity in the schema's required list. This goes beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 clearly states the specific action: 'Retrieves recommended workbooks related to a specific Tableau Public workbook.' It names the resource (related workbooks) and distinguishes it from siblings like get_workbook_details or get_workbook_contents by focusing on recommendations.

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?

It provides clear context: 'Useful for content discovery and finding similar visualizations.' While it does not explicitly name alternative tools to avoid, the use case is sufficiently distinct from siblings. No exclusion criteria are given, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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