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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), yet the description adds real behavioral detail absent from structured fields: pastComments is the latest send_to_past_comments job with its progress or null, and templateParams appears only while the flow retains its template shape. With no output schema, these return-shape semantics carry genuine weight.

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?

Front-loaded with the core payload (document contents) before secondary concerns like version consumption and pastComments. It is dense but every clause adds a distinct fact; no filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe the return shape, and it does: document fields, version, templateParams conditionality, and pastComments nullability. Missing are any hints about failure modes or size/limits, but for a single-resource read tool this is close to complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by explaining what the version parameter selects (an older saved version's document) and pointing to its source list_automation_versions, adding intent the schema's 'saved version number' phrasing does not fully convey.

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 and resource ('One automation as a document') and immediately enumerates what the document contains: triggers, nodes, start. It also names the siblings it relates to (put_automation, update_automation, list_automation_versions), so an agent can distinguish it from list_automations without opening a schema.

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?

Explains the version-selection path ('Pass version to read an older saved version's document instead (list_automation_versions)') and why the returned version matters to put_automation/update_automation. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-list_automations statement, but the routing context is clear.

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