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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful non-schema behavior: the required sign-in/connect handshake and the result ordering (cross-service jobs first, then playbooks flagged enabled/not). It does not mention pagination or result size limits.

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 dense sentences with the prerequisite front-loaded and no filler. It reads as slightly run-on, but every clause carries information (auth, ordering, how to open a result).

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers auth requirements, return ordering, and the enabled/disabled flag, which is most of what an agent needs to call it and interpret results. The undocumented `q` and `service` semantics are the remaining gap.

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 coverage is only 33%: only `session` is documented in the schema. The description touches the 'service' concept (service 'datailo', kind 'job') but never explains how the `service` filter or the `q` query parameter actually behave, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap on two of three parameters.

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 makes clear the tool lists workflows — cross-service jobs first, then per-service playbooks — and explicitly distinguishes itself from datailo_workflow, which is used to open one. The verb is only implied (carried mostly by the title) but the resource and ordering are precise enough for an agent to know what it returns.

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 states the authentication prerequisite (call datailo_connect and datailo_connect_verify first) and routes the agent to datailo_workflow for opening a result. It lacks an explicit 'use this when you want to discover/list workflows' framing, but the context and the named alternative give usable guidance.

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