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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by stating the tenant-scope limit ('only reads tenant versions and quality settings') and by explaining the trial default for agent-created workflows, which affects how the returned data should be interpreted.

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?

Content is front-loaded — purpose first, then usage, next step, limits, and example — and each sentence serves a distinct function. The phrasing is somewhat dense and the trial-default sentence sits awkwardly between purpose and usage guidance, but there is no 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content and does so by naming lifecycle states, guardrails, and trial settings. Scope limits and the follow-up call are also covered; only the relationship to the near-duplicate workflow_get_versions remains unaddressed.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a trivial example ('{"workflowId":"invoice-flow"}') and no format, source, or lookup guidance for the ID, so nothing meaningful is contributed beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb-plus-resource statement ('List workflow versions') and enumerates the data returned: lifecycle states, approved metric guardrails, and the effective trial setting. It is clearly distinct from mutation siblings such as workflow_apply_edits or workflow_save_version, though it never names the very similarly titled sibling workflow_get_versions, leaving that boundary ambiguous.

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 both a positive trigger ('Use when you plan a change or review a trial') and a negative one ('Do not use when you need to activate a version'), plus a next-step chain to workflow_apply_edits. The when-not clause does not name the tool that should be used for activation, so the routing guidance is slightly incomplete.

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