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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by disclosing cost ('Free') and the shape of each returned record (the one sentence a person types, what it needs, whether it quotes first), which annotations do not provide. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 collection being listed and the scoping key (id), followed by the preview fields and the drill-down behavior. The field enumeration is slightly dense but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 return-shape burden and does so by naming the fields returned in list mode and the extra detail in single-id mode. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and the explicit 'Free and read-only' note, an agent has everything needed to select and call it.

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% and the enum is self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating what the full-id lookup actually returns ('its steps, tools and gate'), which the schema's terse 'returns that one workflow in full' does not convey.

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 ('List the named editor workflows your Switch Editor agent can run by id') and immediately enumerates the returned fields. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like load_workflow_playbook or get_editor_run without opening any 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?

Explicitly covers both usage modes: call with no id to browse all workflows, or pass id to read one in full with steps, tools and gate. It also routes the agent forward by naming run_editor_agent as the execution path. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g., versus other listing tools), but the context is clear.

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