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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: that these workflows require no human decision point once started, and that the response includes each workflow's id, purpose, inputs and steps — enough to know what a call returns without an output schema. Only pagination/volume behavior is unaddressed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and definition, followed by return contents and next steps. No redundant restatement of the title, and the parenthetical examples are compact rather than explanatory bloat.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value information and the follow-up workflow. An agent can select and invoke it correctly with nothing further needed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing to mis-specify. The description usefully clarifies the inverse relationship — that a workflow id is what you pass to start_run — which adds meaning about this tool's output being another tool's input.

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 the specific verb and resource ('Lists the workflows') and then defines the concept — 'runs of several steps that need no choice from a person once started' — with concrete examples (deliver, unslop, shorts). It also enumerates what is returned (id, what it does, inputs, steps), so an agent knows exactly what this tool yields versus the run-oriented siblings.

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 routes the agent forward: 'Run one with start_run and workflow; price it first with estimate_run.' This names the alternative tools and the order in which to use them, which is precisely the when/when-next guidance an agent needs.

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