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

The description explains that 'The workflow engine validates the response and advances to the next step,' revealing the tool's side effects beyond the annotations. It also highlights the guardrail against misrepresenting automation as human review by asserting approved_by only accepts 'auto', which is valuable behavioral context not present in the 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 detailed but every sentence earns its place: it opens with the purpose, followed by usage triggers, then key parameter behaviors, and closes with the auto-approval caveat. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 9 parameters and complex gating semantics, with no filler.

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 complex input schema, the description covers the critical context: what the workflow does, when to use it, how to handle evidence references, and how to correctly assert human vs. automated approval. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values, so the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic nuance by providing real-world examples of responses, clarifying evidence_references accepted formats, and reinforcing the distinction between approved_by='auto' and user_acknowledged for human review, which goes beyond the schema parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Provide an answer to the current step in a compliance workflow.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like start_workflow, cancel_workflow, and get_current_step by focusing on submitting a response for the current step.

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 explicitly states 'Use this when someone provides information requested by the workflow' and gives concrete examples. It also covers conditional usage for unattended gates, clearly specifying when to set approved_by='auto' and user_acknowledged=false, which orients the agent on when to use this variant.

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