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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false/no destruction, and the description adds behavior the annotations can't convey: result ordering (most recent update, ties by org then workflow ID), a hard cap at limit, and the significant constraint that no cursor exists. That last point materially changes how an agent must paginate.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then return shape, then the no-cursor caveat, then the sibling routing. Nothing is redundant with the title or 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?

There is no output schema, yet the description sketches the return shape ({workflows}, each with owning organization) and ordering, and it closes the pagination question an agent would otherwise hit at call time. Complete for a two-parameter read 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters; the description still adds value by explaining that organization_id scopes to a single org and that limit is the only way to see beyond the returned page. It doesn't add format details for organization_id, but the schema covers that (

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 ('List published workflows'), defines the scope precisely (across organizations, or narrowed to one when organization_id is given), and is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_workflow and list_workflow_runs.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use organization_id to narrow scope, raise limit when more results are needed (because there is no cursor), and call get_workflow first to inspect parameters, side effects and gates before start_workflow. Both the alternative tool and the condition selecting it are named.

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