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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: results are newest-first, what fields are included, and that versions are created automatically by assistant step changes. It stops short of describing error cases or pagination semantics.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the return content and followed by the version-creation rule. Every clause carries information, though the first sentence is a dense list rather than flowing prose.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description explains the returned fields and ordering well. It lacks detail on pagination behavior and whether versions can be further inspected or compared, but annotations cover the safety dimensions and the complexity is low.

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 50%: limit is well-documented in the schema, but workflow_id has no schema description. The description's phrase 'The workflow's saved versions' only obliquely ties workflow_id to the target workflow and adds no format or selection guidance. This is minimally adequate but does not fully compensate for the undocumented required parameter.

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 resource and result: the workflow's saved versions, ordered newest first, with the fields returned (number, note, who/when, current match). An agent can tell this lists version history, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from a sibling like get_workflow.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent would use it to inspect version history, and the note that every assistant step change creates a version hints at why the list exists. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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