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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the returned content and the three-valued configuration status (configured/unconfigured/invalid), which is not derivable from the schema or annotations. It does not mention error cases such as an unknown flowId, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the payload contents without filler. It is slightly long as a single sentence, but every clause adds distinct information, so nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does so concretely (tree shape, step type, config status, insert locations). Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior on an invalid flowId or tree depth/pagination limits.

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?

Only one parameter (flowId), and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format, source, or resolution guidance for the id, so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas 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?

Specific verb (Get) plus resource (flow structure) with an enumeration of exactly what is returned: step tree, step type, configuration status, and valid insert locations. This distinguishes it from siblings like ap_add_step, ap_validate_flow, and ap_read_step_settings, which an agent could otherwise confuse it 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?

The mention that it returns 'valid insert locations for ap_add_step' implicitly routes the agent to call this before ap_add_step. There is no explicit when-not or comparison against ap_validate_flow / ap_read_step_settings, but the prerequisite context is clear enough to select the tool.

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