sharing_recipients_list

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

The description states the action and API endpoint. Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what is already declared.

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 very concise with two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes the underlying API call for reference, with no wasted words.

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 simple list tool with no parameters, the description adequately conveys the purpose. It could mention the output format (list of recipients) but the presence of an output schema mitigates this. It is sufficient for the agent to understand its function.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable as none are needed.

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 tool lists Delta Sharing recipients. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Delta Sharing recipients'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, or get.

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 alternatives. It does not differentiate from sharing_recipients_get (which gets a single recipient) or mention typical use cases.

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