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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the description is free to add the useful parts: result ordering (newest first), and that each item carries deployment status and last-run outcome. That return-shape preview is genuinely additive given there is no output schema, though it says nothing about result-count limits or truncation.

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 short sentences, none wasted: scope and ordering first, then payload contents, then the usage cue. Information an agent needs to decide is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive search with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, filter behavior, and item contents. The remaining gap is minor: nothing tells the agent what happens when more than 50 matches exist or whether a total is reported.

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 100% and both parameters already document their meaning, default (20), and maximum (50). The description only echoes the query semantics and adds the ordering, 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 the resource (the workspace's workflows), the ordering (newest first), and the optional name/description filter, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_actions or search_templates, but the resource-scoped phrasing plus the search_* sibling naming pattern makes the distinction clear.

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?

"Look here before building something new" gives a concrete decision context for reaching for this tool rather than creating fresh. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, which keeps it short of a 5.

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