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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral detail: include=['content'] inlines bodies. But it doesn't mention read-only nature, pagination behavior, or any side effects. For a search tool this may suffice, yet with zero annotations, more behavioral context (e.g., whether it's read-only, default pagination) would be expected.

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, with the purpose front-loaded, followed by actionable filtering guidance and an alternative. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy. It is well-structured for quick agent parsing.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core usage (filters, include) and an alternative, but omits details like match semantics, pagination defaults, and the exact content of inlined bodies. While these are common, the description could be more complete for a tool with this many parameters and no output schema.

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 only 38% (q, tags, context have descriptions). The description adds meaning for providers (a filter) and include (inlines bodies), which are not described in the schema. However, it doesn't explain pagination (page/limit) or match (any/all), leaving some gaps. It significantly improves understanding of key filters but not all parameters.

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?

Description clearly identifies the resource (Arazzo workflows) and its nature (multi-step API workflows chaining operations), distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_artifacts via an explicit cross-type search alternative. The verb 'find' is implied by the name and the description states what is being searched.

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 filtering guidance (q/tags/providers) and explains the include parameter, and names find_artifacts as the alternative for cross-type search. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over other find_* siblings beyond the cross-type case, or provide exclusions.

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