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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals a read-only listing operation, enumerates the return fields (id, expected inputs, steps, run cost), and discloses the authentication requirement. It does not mention edge cases like empty results or error behavior, but those are not critical for a simple list operation.

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 longer than minimal, but every sentence adds necessary context: the list scope, the definition of a workflow, the returned fields, the sequential relationship to workflow_run, and the API key requirement. The core listing purpose is front-loaded, and the later sentences support tool selection and invocation rather than padding.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: what it lists, what it returns, who owns the resource, and how to authenticate. It doesn't explain pagination or the exact shape of the response, but the limit parameter and the listed return fields cover the essentials.

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 input schema already fully documents the single optional 'limit' parameter, including its default, minimum, maximum, and ordering behavior. The description does not add further nuance about the parameter, so it earns the baseline score for high schema coverage rather than extra credit.

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 specific verb-resource pair: 'List the workflows saved to the ToolForte account this API key belongs to.' It also explains the concept of a workflow and explicitly distinguishes this listing tool from its workflow_run sibling by noting that workflow_run needs an id from here. This removes ambiguity about what the tool does and why it exists.

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 sequencing guidance: 'Call this first: workflow_run needs an id from here.' It also states a clear prerequisite — an API key is required because workflows belong to an account — and even explains how to obtain and send the key. This gives an agent concrete conditions for when and how to use the tool.

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