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), so the bar is lower. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: match returns do_not_build true, touched capabilities, and the next call; no match returns 404 OUT_OF_SCOPE; it never guesses and names matched words; and it is free. This is rich, specific disclosure.

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 short and front-loaded, beginning with 'The first call' and then delivering outcome details. Every sentence carries information, though the punctuation in 'Never: Guess: it names the words it matched' is slightly awkward and could be smoother.

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?

Given a single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return behavior: what a match returns (do_not_build true, capabilities, next call) and what a no-match returns (404 OUT_OF_SCOPE). It also states it is free and non-guessing, so an agent has what it needs to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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?

There is one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already documents that 'text' is what the user asked for in the user's words. The description does not add any further meaning about the parameter, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it says whether the user's request is a flow JOBFLOW already runs, and frames itself as 'The first call'. It clearly differentiates by ordering, but does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'The first call' gives clear context for when to use this tool: at the beginning, before other flow-related calls. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the positional guidance is explicit enough to guide invocation.

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