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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool 'Returns the summary plus its source' and mentions two possible sources, which is useful beyond the schema. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe side-effect absence, though 'summary' and the absence of mutation verbs make that reasonably clear.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, usage boundaries are clearly delineated, and the return-value note earns its place. Every sentence adds distinct information.

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 read/summarization tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, what not to use it for, the alternative, and what it returns. The main gap is the lack of any flowId parameter guidance, but the tool's simplicity and clear naming keep it from being materially incomplete.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented flowId parameter, but it never explains what flowId is, its format, or how to obtain it. The parameter name and tool title make the intent somewhat inferable, but the description adds no actual semantic value beyond the schema's 'string' type and required flag.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'One-sentence flow summary.' It distinguishes itself from get_flow by explicitly stating when a plain 'what does this flow do' question should route to get_flow instead. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and separates it from the closest sibling.

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 gives explicit trigger phrases for using this tool ('summarise', 'tldr', 'explain the purpose of X') and explicitly says when not to use it ('A plain "what does this flow do" ... wants real detail: use get_flow'). No inference is needed to decide between this tool and its main alternative.

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