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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds the context that this resumes a paused workflow. It does not disclose specific side effects or state changes, but with annotations the bar is lower. The description adds moderate value beyond the structured fields.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, then usage examples, then the prerequisite. Every element earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no required fields, output schema present). The description combined with the schema fully covers what the agent needs: what it does, when to use it, and how to obtain the workflow_id. No gaps remain.

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% and the schema description for workflow_id already explains it comes from start_workflow and can be recovered via list_workflows. The description repeats the requirement without adding new parameter nuances, so it earns the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 continues a paused or interrupted compliance workflow, using a specific verb ('Continue') and resource ('compliance workflow'). It also distinguishes from siblings by giving concrete example utterances and referencing start_workflow as the origin of the required ID.

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?

Provides explicit usage scenarios with example phrases and a clear prerequisite (workflow_id from start_workflow). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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