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

Annotations only declare the safety flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false); the description adds substantive behavior the agent could not infer: a 14-day retention window, that nothing executes until the recipient switches it on, that the response includes the link plus unconnected accounts, and that secret-bearing designs are rejected.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the action and retention, then the recipient experience, then the return value and the rejection rule.

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 no output schema and a nested-object input, the description covers the lifecycle, the safety model, the return payload, and the failure condition — everything an agent needs to call it and set expectations.

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 single nested 'workflow' parameter is 100% documented in the schema, including the full shape reference, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, only characterizing the input as a 'design' that gets checked.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Checks a Nityaflow workflow design and keeps it for 14 days behind a link') and clarifies the deliverable is a shareable link, not an executed workflow. It is clearly distinct from the unrelated siblings, though it never mentions get_workflow_guide, the one sibling an agent might confuse it with when hunting for design guidance.

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?

Usage context is clear: this is what you do with a completed workflow design to hand someone a reviewable link. It also supplies a hard exclusion ('designs that contain passwords, API keys or tokens are refused'), though it names no alternative tool or explicit when-not-to-use branch.

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