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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond these: the response includes the full flow catalog for reference, and covers not just the active flow but also its config, readiness, and decision history. This helps set expectations for what the read operation returns.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds the catalog detail. 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by enumerating: active flow, config, readiness, decision context, and full catalog. This is largely complete, though it doesn't explain concepts like 'readiness' or 'decided' in depth, which is acceptable for a read-only informational tool.

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%, and both parameters (handle and context) are already well documented in the schema. The tool description doesn't add parameter-specific guidance, 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 states exactly what the tool returns: which of five named flows is active, its config, readiness, and decision details, plus the full flow catalog. This is a specific, resource-focused purpose that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_flow or get_schedule.

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 makes the use case obvious: when an agent needs to know the tenant's active daily content flow, its configuration, or readiness. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the specificity of the content loop and flow names leaves little ambiguity.

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