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

Beyond the read-only annotation, the description discloses key nuances: questions_for_user is advisory while requires_user_input is server-enforced, and it explains user_provided_fields gating submit_response. This adds significant operational context not available from annotations alone.

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, each earning its place: the main purpose, usage examples, and important field semantics. It is dense with useful information and contains no redundant phrases.

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, the description doesn't need to enumerate return fields, but it explains their behavior (advisory vs. enforced, user_provided_fields). This covers the core functionality and edge-case semantics, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema already fully documents workflow_id, including its origin from start_workflow and recovery via list_workflows (100% coverage). The description does not add further parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool checks which step a compliance workflow is currently on and what input is needed next. It names the specific resource (compliance workflow step) and a concrete verb (check), and the example queries distinguish it from related tools like get_progress.

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 provides explicit usage triggers: 'Use this when someone asks...' with concrete example phrasings. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable for an agent.

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