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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the operation is a fetch (read-only) and specifies the response includes the full step tree and condition. This is transparent about the primary behavior, though it doesn't discuss error handling or authorization, which are minor for a simple get-by-id operation.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is succinct.

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 simple single-parameter get operation, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. With no output schema, the description adequately covers the return content.

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% (the only parameter 'id' is described as 'Workflow UUID.'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one workflow by id'), and explicitly includes what is returned ('full step tree and condition'). It clearly differentiates from workflows_list by emphasizing the detail level.

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: 'Use this after workflows_list to inspect details before editing.' This provides clear context and implies the exclusion of using it before listing or for editing itself.

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