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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that rows are returned newest first, but it does not discuss pagination quirks or the legacy bare-array response, which are left entirely to the schema.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words; the core purpose and ordering are front-loaded. It is arguably too terse, but it is structurally clean and easy to scan.

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 simple read-only list tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits cross-tool routing to workflow_read and any hint about the pagination model, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema for those details.

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 both limit and cursor are thoroughly documented in the schema, including the unusual legacy behavior. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List your workflow rows', with the ordering '(newest first)'. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from workflow_read or workflow_prepared_outputs.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'List'; an agent can infer this is the enumeration tool among workflow_* siblings. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus workflow_read, and no mention of filtering or scope limitations.

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