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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it explains that an inactive candidate does not run on a schedule or webhook, which helps an agent interpret candidate status.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted wording. Purpose, usage timing, and the key inactive-candidate behavior are presented in a logical order.

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, read-only, single-parameter list tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use it, and an important status caveat. It could say more about the returned fields, but no output schema exists and the core invocation context is present.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single required workflowId parameter, so the description should compensate. It only says 'for one workflow,' which clarifies scope but does not explain the identifier format or where to obtain the workflowId.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configured trigger nodes and current candidate status') scoped to one workflow. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like trigger_options or trigger_set to sharpen differentiation.

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 gives a contextual usage cue: 'Use before asking the one launch question.' However, that cue is vague without more context, and there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative such as trigger_options or trigger_set.

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