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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting 'Read-only; proxy credentials are masked' and mentioning 'pending logins,' which go beyond the annotations. No contradictions present.

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?

The description is a single, coherent sentence front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by a short identification note and a safety note. Each phrase adds value with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 read-only tool with an output schema and good annotations, the description enumerates the key data fields and identification parameters. It lacks an explicit statement that at least one identifier is required, but this is implied by 'Identify by workflowId or exact title,' making it almost complete.

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 descriptions already cover 100% of parameters, including that each is an alternative to the other. The description merely reinforces this with 'Identify by workflowId or exact title,' adding no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool retrieves full detail of exactly one workflow, listing specific contents (prompt template, variables, trigger, settings, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workflows by focusing on a single workflow.

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?

The description implies usage by providing identification methods ('Identify by workflowId or exact title') and lists what data is returned, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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