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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the markdown mode is written for direct display to the user (pipeline, nodes, voices, gates), while include_definition exposes the editable graph that update_workflow consumes.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then sequencing, then flag semantics. No filler, no repetition of the schema's type information.

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?

With an output schema present and read-only annotations in place, the description only needs to cover selection and mode intent, which it does. The three response modes (markdown page, structured fields, editable graph) are all accounted for.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description clears that bar by explaining the intent behind each flag rather than restating types: markdown=true for user-facing display vs false for fields only, and include_definition=true specifically to feed update_workflow.

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 ('Fetch one workflow') and characterizes the payload precisely ('as a markdown page describing what its graph does'), which separates it from list_workflows and get_node_info. An agent knows exactly what it gets back before opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing rule ('Call after list_workflows') and conditions for the two optional flags, including the update_workflow round-trip. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. when to prefer patch_workflow or get_node_info over fetching the whole graph), so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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