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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, closed world), so only the extra context counts. The description adds the iterate-until-clean loop and the vague claim 'the server blocks unsafe content', which doesn't explain what is blocked or how it surfaces. It never says what a finding looks like or whether a clean draft returns an empty set.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the text is short, but the second half is telegraphic and hard to parse ('Use when validation passes' has no stated subject). The example JSON contributes little and the 'Limits' line is a fragment that adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 a single required parameter, a read-only safety profile, and no output schema, the description is roughly adequate: it covers purpose, timing, and next step. What's missing is any sense of output — what findings contain, whether they are categorized — which an agent needs to act on the result.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema description coverage sets the baseline at 3. The trailing example {"workflowId":"invoice-flow"} only restates the shape already in the schema and adds no format or sourcing guidance (e.g., where to get a 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 opening sentence states a concrete verb and object: it checks a draft for secrets, personal data, and hidden text. It is distinguishable from workflow_validate and workflow_test_run, which sit at different workflow stages. Mild ambiguity remains between 'draft' and the single workflowId parameter, and the read-only inspection nature is left implicit.

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?

Explicit sequencing: run only after validation passes, skip while validation has open issues, then remediate findings and hand off to workflow_test_run. It names the sibling that consumes the result, which is genuinely useful routing. It doesn't name the validation tool directly or say what to do with a failing draft besides 'do not use'.

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