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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description doesn't need to. It still adds real behavioral value: each returned flow carries readiness information and seven-day stats, and archived records are hidden by default — a filtering rule not encoded in annotations or schema.

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 dense sentences with zero filler, front-loading the resource and the enriched payload before the filter and default-behavior details. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return structure, the description only needs to convey scope, filters, and the archived default — all present. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including enum values and that event_id comes from search_events. The description's only addition is the archived-default rule; the enum enumerations it restates are redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 fits.

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 a specific verb and resource ("List the Zuno flows of an event") and adds what makes the result distinctive: readiness gaps per flow plus seven-day stats. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_flow or list_flow_templates, so an agent must infer the boundary, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear usage context: it is scoped to one event, filterable by origin or status, and states the non-obvious default that archived flows are only returned when explicitly requested. It offers no explicit exclusions or "use X instead" routing against get_flow/list_flow_templates.

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