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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by stating that results are limited to workflows 'this user can view' and by specifying both returned link values. It does not cover error behavior, but the added permission scoping and output description are meaningful.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return value and followed by a concise usage note. There is no redundant wording, and every sentence contributes useful 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?

For a one-parameter read-only link helper, the description covers the key return values and permission scope while annotations handle safety signaling. The main remaining gap is that it does not explain how to source the workflowId, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required workflowId parameter, so the schema itself provides no semantic detail. The description contributes a permission constraint by saying the workflow must be one 'this user can view,' but it does not explain how to obtain or format the ID. That partial added meaning warrants a middle score.

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 ('Return') and names the resources precisely: the editor path and absolute summary panel link. It clearly sets this apart from workflow data retrieval tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 concrete downstream usage instruction ('Use summaryLink as the final link in a short build result'), which implies when the result is useful. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as workflow_get or workflow_list.

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