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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: results are implicitly scoped to active, non-archived workflows, and the tool is read-only in the sense that it never resolves items. It omits pagination/return behavior, but the output schema covers that.

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 short sentences with no filler; the usage trigger is front-loaded and the boundary note follows. 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?

Because an output schema exists, return values needn't be described, and the annotations carry the read-only profile. The remaining hole is parameter behavior across seven undocumented params, which the description never addresses, leaving it only minimally adequate for a tool of this parameter complexity.

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?

Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage and the description mentions none of them. Enum value names (open/deferred, blocker/question) partly self-document state and priority, but limit, query, cursor, workflowId, and department are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (list) and resource (workflow questions) and narrows scope to unanswered/deferred questions and blockers in active, non-archived workflows. It is clear what it returns, though it never names or contrasts with a sibling such as list_workflows, so the sibling-differentiation credit is partial.

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 opening clause gives an explicit trigger (user wants unanswered or deferred questions and blockers), and the closing sentence supplies a negative boundary ('does not answer them'), steering the agent away from using this for resolution. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use for answering.

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