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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral value by disclosing exactly what the read returns (nodes, connections, attached instruction/ruleset IDs), which is non-obvious and important with no output schema present. It stops short of stating error/not-found behavior or any permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource is named first and the payload detail follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-param read tool with no output schema, the description usefully compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is the main thing an agent needs. It would be fully complete with a note on not-found behavior, but nothing essential to calling it 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 description coverage is 100% with both required parameters documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, scoping, or relationship detail about projectId vs workflowId beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one saved workflow') and enumerates the payload: name, description, nodes, connections, and per-connection instruction/ruleset IDs. It is clearly distinguishable from list_workflows by the singular 'one saved workflow', though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Retrieval by id is implied by 'one saved workflow' plus the required projectId/workflowId, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about when to prefer list_workflows, and no mention of what happens if the workflow does not exist.

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