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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description goes further by disclosing ordering (newest first), the meaning of 'shared' (true when the user is not the owner), and the role vocabulary, which are behavioral traits not present in structured fields.

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, front-loaded with the core behavior and scope, then the refinements and return shape. The return-field enumeration is somewhat long but earns its place since there is no output schema.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and explains the 'shared' and 'role' semantics. Gaps remain around pagination beyond the limit cap (no offset/total count) and no explicit routing to sibling search tools.

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 schema already documents all three parameters, including case-insensitivity and the 1-100 range. The description restates the same filters without adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (List), resource (saved Wavelength flows), scope (signed-in user's), and ordering (newest first). It implicitly separates itself from search_flows/query_flows by emphasizing 'saved' and 'signed-in user's', but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 presents the optional filters (query, folder_id, limit) as available refinements, which implies usage, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus search_flows, query_flows, or list_folders/list_versions. No exclusions or selection conditions are stated.

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