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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context about what the workflows are, what they do, and that each entry lists its arguments, which helps set expectations about the tool's purpose beyond the annotations.

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 sentences that deliver high-value information: what the workflows are, what they contain, and how to proceed after listing. No fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is nearly complete. It explains the resource, the contents of each entry, and the follow-up action. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by noting that entries list their arguments, though the exact return shape remains unspecified.

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?

The tool has zero parameters inferable from the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain parameters. The mention that each entry lists its arguments provides useful context for how the tool's output relates to subsequent parameterized calls. Baseline 4 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 clearly states the resource (GVT prompt workflows) and the action (list), and identifies them as user-invocable recipes that chain GVT tools into complete tasks. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool gvt_get_prompt by noting that the latter renders a prompt with concrete argument values.

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?

The description explicitly instructs the agent to use gvt_get_prompt to render a prompt with concrete argument values after listing. This provides clear routing guidance for when to use this tool versus its sibling.

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