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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are ordered, each carries a capture date, and large apps require paging because hundreds of flows may exist.

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 resource and scope, then pagination guidance, then the natural next tool. 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?

For a 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering, pagination, and the follow-up call adequately. Only the limit parameter's meaning is unaddressed, a minor omission given schema bounds are explicit.

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 only 33% (offset only), so the description must compensate. It does add that appId also accepts a slug and that offset drives pagination, but limit's default/max semantics are left entirely to the schema, leaving a partial gap.

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 — the ordered list of flows for one app — and illustrates what a flow is (onboarding, checkout, settings). It is clearly distinguishable from get_flow (single flow steps) and search_flows, which it does not overlap with.

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: page with offset for big apps, then call get_flow for the steps of one. It gives clear context and a named follow-up, though it does not contrast with search_flows for filtered lookups.

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