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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, not open-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: ordering by most recent update with deterministic tie-breaks (organization ID, then workflow ID), a hard cap at limit, and the fact that there is no cursor-based pagination. Return shape ({workflows}, each with owning organization) is also disclosed.

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 sentences, all load-bearing: scope first, then return/ordering/pagination constraints, then the next-tool handoff. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything missing elsewhere: return shape, ordering, cap, absence of pagination, and the follow-up tool. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is omitted.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining that organization_id scopes results to a single org and that limit both caps the result set and is the only way to page beyond it. It stops short of restating format constraints, but adds real semantic value over the schema.

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') plus scope ('across organizations available to the authenticated principal, or in one organization when organization_id is given'). This cleanly separates it from siblings like list_workflow_runs and get_workflow, which deal with runs and single-workflow detail.

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 forward: 'Use get_workflow to inspect a selected workflow's parameters, side effects and gates before start_workflow.' It also gives the escalation path when results are truncated ('filter by organization_id or raise limit to see more'), which is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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