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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: that output is untruncated versus ap_flow_structure's truncated piece input, and what fields are included. It stops short of return format or pagination details, keeping it at a 4.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and scope, then usage, then the CODE-step exception. Every sentence earns its place; no filler. Slightly dense enumerations but appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the load of describing return content, and it does so by listing the settings categories returned. Combined with annotations covering the read-only safety profile and a 100%-covered schema, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only explicit return-shape detail is absent.

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 params (flowId, stepName) are documented in the schema, including the stepName example and the pointer to ap_flow_structure for valid values. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (a step's settings) with the exact scope 'full untruncated settings', and enumerates the contents (trigger piece input, action/trigger name, loop items, router branches, error handling). It distinguishes itself from ap_flow_structure and ap_read_step_code by name, so an agent can route correctly without opening other schemas.

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 states when to use it ('to see a step's current configuration before updating it') and names the conditions that select alternatives: ap_flow_structure for truncation reasons and ap_read_step_code for CODE step source. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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