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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds substantial non-obvious context: the returned Markdown is advisory reference material, not commands to execute verbatim. It also discloses that the server runs no schedules, so any recurring setup is client-side — a real behavioral caveat the annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by discovery guidance and then interpretation rules; every sentence carries weight. It runs long (five sentences) and the trailing scheduling caveat drifts slightly beyond the fetch operation, but nothing is filler and the ordering is logical.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, yet the description still supplies the crucial interpretive framing (Markdown recipe = suggestions) that an agent cannot infer from the schema. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering the parameter, nothing needed to call and correctly use this tool is missing.

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% and the single parameter is thoroughly documented, including an example id and the discovery pointer. The description's 'by id' and its reference to xtiles_list_workflows largely restate the schema, so it earns the baseline 3 rather than more.

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 ('Fetch a prepared xTiles workflow by id') and goes further by defining what a workflow actually is ('a recipe the xTiles team wrote for this kind of request'). This makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like xtiles_list_workflows, xtiles_get_docs, and xtiles_get_project_content.

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: 'Discover ids with `xtiles_list_workflows` first' names the prerequisite tool and the condition that selects it. It also gives downstream usage guidance — walk the user through the recipe, execute agreed steps via `xtiles_*` tools, and ask before setting up anything recurring.

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