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

Adds genuine context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: results are unvalidated suggestions, output is compact rows (id, type, title, url, one_line, tested), and "does not use a server-side model" sets a deterministic expectation. The privacy instruction to keep private context in the host is a useful behavioral constraint that annotations do not cover.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries information, but the body is a dense semicolon-chained run-on that mixes setup advice, return shape, and follow-up tooling without paragraphing. It is longer than it needs to be and the stale diagram/open_in_builder sentences cost the reader without paying back.

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 an output schema present, annotations covering safety, and full schema descriptions, the description adds the missing layer: how to prepare before calling, what the rows mean, and which sibling to call next. Completeness is only slightly undercut by the unexplained diagram/open_in_builder references that have no counterpart in the current schema.

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, and the description does extend meaning for request vs slug and for limit/response_format (3 vs 5 before/after steps, optional inputs in detailed mode). However, it references "diagram" and "open_in_builder" as if they were selectable inputs, and neither exists in the schema, which risks confusing an agent about the available parameter set.

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 concrete verb and resource: "Find candidate steps for a multi-step job," and explicitly frames the output as suggestions rather than a validated plan, which separates it from prepare_workflow. The opening is specific enough to pick it over siblings, though the later drift into diagram/open_in_builder talk muddies the core purpose.

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?

Gives real when-to-use procedure: build a task brief from chat, files and get_me first, keep private context in the host, then send only focused task terms. It also splits behavior by input ("With request" vs "With slug") and routes the agent onward to get_skill/get_workflow for full instructions. It never states when NOT to use it, e.g. when the user already has a named workflow.

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