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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: result ordering (most recently changed first) and the full status vocabulary, including the non-obvious `_with_draft` value meaning edits are staged and not yet live. It does not mention pagination limits, though the schema covers those.

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 core action and ending with the sibling routing. The long parenthetical defining a procedure and its status values is dense but each clause carries information an agent needs. Slightly heavy nesting keeps it from a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by naming the fields returned (ids, names, When to use, status, run frequency) and the sort order. Combined with schema-documented pagination, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both pagination parameters carry ranges and the schema explains that `metadata.hasMore` signals another page. The description says nothing about paging or page size, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource and goes further by defining what a procedure is ("what Aide does for one kind of customer message: steps to follow, details to collect, how it finishes"). It also enumerates the returned fields and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_procedure, so an agent can separate the two without opening either 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?

The final sentence routes the agent clearly: use this to enumerate, use get_procedure to read one in full. That is an explicit alternative with a stated condition. It stops short of saying when listing is not appropriate (e.g. when the id is already known and a direct get would suffice), so it is strong but not complete.

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