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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description appropriately adds context beyond them: it returns the full workflow graph and warns that the graph shape is undocumented and must match for execution. It does not describe auth needs or exact response fields, but it adds meaningful behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the returned resource, followed by the key authoring warning. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 one-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is returned (an automation and its full workflow graph) and why the shape matters. It could say a bit more about the response structure, but the critical context is present.

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%, and the schema already explains that `automationId` comes from `automation_list`. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond implying the single automation by ID, so the baseline 3 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 identifies the resource returned—'One automation with its full workflow graph'—and implicitly frames it as a read operation. It distinguishes the tool from `automation_upsert` by explaining why to read before writing, though it does not explicitly contrast with `automation_list`.

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?

It gives clear usage context: read one automation before authoring another with `automation_upsert`, and explains that the node/edge shape is otherwise undocumented. It does not cover when to use this versus `automation_list`, but the primary alternative is named with a clear condition.

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