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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation it discloses the deliberate cost/coverage trade-off, lists precisely what is omitted (block data, action configs, button/action/link/rule ids), and warns that *Preview fields are for reading and never for writing back. That is behavioral context an agent could not derive from annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loads the return shape before the caveats and every sentence carries information. It is dense with parenthetical field lists, slightly long, but no sentence is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description fully compensates by describing the returned structure (including links[].to and menu.buttons[].to) and its truncation behavior. An agent knows what it gets, what it does not get, and where to go next.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains flowId provenance and the applicationId personal-key failure mode in detail. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Return one flow's graph topology') and enumerates exactly what comes back: blocks in reading order, per-block summaries, and link/menu targets. It is clearly distinguished from get_block_details, which the description names as the deeper follow-up.

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?

Explicitly positions itself as 'the normal first step before editing an existing flow' and names the alternative ('once you know which block matters, call get_block_details'). Both the when-to-use and the hand-off are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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