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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful domain context by specifying that these are 'versioned' declarations and identifies the 'Form · Fact · Verify' classification, which helps the agent understand what the tool operates on without contradicting 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary filler. Every word adds meaning and it is immediately clear what the tool does.

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 zero-parameter list operation with robust annotations, the description is adequate. It lacks details about return values or pagination, but given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description offers no parameter details, but none are needed since there are no inputs to explain.

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 uses the specific verb 'list' and clearly identifies the resource as 'versioned Form · Fact · Verify workflow declarations', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_operator_queue or get_*. The qualifiers 'versioned' and 'Form · Fact · Verify' give precise scope.

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 implies that the tool is for listing workflow declarations, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. There are no mentions of alternative tools or contexts where this tool is inappropriate.

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