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

Beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations, it discloses the authentication flow, return behavior (best matches with reasons, or no match and guidance), ordering of user vs shipped workflows, and that shipped plans are unvalidated builder drafts. It also states the tool is cheap, runs no search, and makes no decision for the user.

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 dense and mostly functional, but it is not front-loaded on purpose: it opens with authentication before stating what the tool does. The example arguments and some schema-adjacent details make it longer than necessary, though most sentences earn their place.

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 read-only workflow finder with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers authentication, intended use, alternatives, return expectations, limitations, and example arguments. An agent has enough information to select and invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents task, limit, and session. The description adds an example call and language guidance, but much of that repeats the schema, so the baseline 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: find a proposed workflow/method for multi-step legal work. It gives concrete use cases (checking whether a ruling still holds, memo with sources, deadlines) and clearly distinguishes this tool from get_workflow, list_workflows, and workflow_guide.

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?

It explicitly covers when to use this tool, when to use alternatives, and the sign-in prerequisite. It also clarifies that a single lookup needs no setup, browsing uses list_workflows, opening uses get_workflow, and writing uses workflow_guide.

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