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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the returned fields, that version is required for put_automation, and that templateParams only appear when the flow still has its template shape. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 sentences, no filler, and each sentence earns its place: the first defines the core output, the second adds the version and templateParams details that matter for downstream use. Information is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 read operation with a fully documented schema and readOnlyHint, the description adequately covers the return payload and even notes a conditional field. It could mention error cases or more about the 'document' structure, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema already explains id and workspaceId well, including when workspaceId is needed and how to handle ambiguous cases.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a single-resource read: 'One automation as a document' with specific fields (triggers, nodes, start). It distinguishes itself from list-oriented siblings by emphasizing 'One automation' and connects to put_automation through the version field.

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 provides clear context: use this to get a single automation and its version, which is explicitly stated as needed by put_automation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the single-vs-list contrast and the version-for-update link give usable guidance.

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