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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context about pagination: 'Results are paginated with limit (default 20, max 100) and offset; follow next_offset until null.' It also lists the returned fields, which is useful beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses four short sentences, each adding value: purpose, filters, pagination, and use cases. No redundant or filler content. Well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Given the read-only nature, the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, pagination behavior, and use cases. It is complete for a straightforward list operation, with no significant gaps in context.

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 the description largely restates what the schema already provides (e.g., status values, limit default and max, offset semantics). It does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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's function: 'List your organisation's workflows' with specific fields (id, type, status, current step, last update). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_workflow_types (which lists types) and get_current_step (which retrieves a specific step). The verb 'List' plus resource 'workflows' is unambiguous.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use it to recover a lost workflow_id or review past assessments.' This gives concrete use cases. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, retaining a clear context but no exclusions.

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