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

readOnlyHint already signals a safe read, and the description adds useful context about the summary fields and connected-account scope. It does not disclose potential pagination, ordering, or error behavior, so it adds modest but not rich behavioral detail beyond 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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what is returned and the second names the relevant alternative. Every word earns its place.

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-only list tool with one optional, fully documented parameter, the description covers purpose, scope, returned fields, and the main sibling alternative. No output schema is needed because the field list is in the description.

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 sole parameter workspaceId is documented with a detailed schema description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 defines the tool as returning automations on connected accounts and enumerates the returned fields (name, channel, live/draft, triggers, run count). It also distinguishes itself from get_automation, which reads one flow's document, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use get_automation when the need is to read one flow's document, implying list_automations is for the summary list across connected accounts. This provides a clear decision rule between siblings.

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