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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does contribute useful flow context — the return of loop.remainingFixes and the follow-up call to verify_task — but is silent on auth, side effects of the multi-step job, or what 'loop' means.

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?

Three compact fragments, verb and identifier front-loaded, with the routing hint immediately after. Terse to the edge of being cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet three of four parameters remain unexplained. The description covers the calling flow and follow-up verification but leaves an agent unable to configure the request fully.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, yet it only names workflowId. The async, input, and responseMode parameters (including an enum) are undocumented in both schema and description, so an agent has no basis for setting them.

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+resource ('Run a named multi-step job by workflowId') and explicitly distinguishes itself from close siblings run_playbook and solve_task. The one gap is that 'workflow' vs 'playbook'/'task' semantics are never defined, leaving the distinction partly inferential.

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?

'Prefer run_playbook (skill) or solve_task (goal)' gives the agent an explicit routing rule that names the alternatives and the condition selecting them. It stops short of stating when run_workflow IS the correct choice (e.g., when you already hold a workflowId).

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