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

Annotations establish the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, closed-world), so the burden is partly lifted. The description adds that id-based retries return partial per-entry results, which is useful behavioral context, but it omits what re-running a failed entry actually does to workflow state and any permission requirements.

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 action and followed by the selector modes; nothing is padded. The second sentence partly restates return-shape information that the output schema already carries, which is the only waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so describing return shapes is redundant rather than necessary, and the description otherwise covers purpose and parameter modes. It lacks any routing guidance against the many workflow siblings (trigger, cancel, diagnose) and any note on failure handling, leaving the definition adequate but thin.

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 50%, and the description compensates by explaining the two selector variants ('explicit entry ids' vs 'all failed entries at one node'), which maps directly onto the anyOf structure. workspaceId semantics are fully covered by the schema's own description, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retry ... failed workflow entries') and enumerates the two addressing modes (explicit entry ids, or all failed entries at one node). That implicitly separates it from trigger_workflow and cancel_workflow_node_leads, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 distinguishes the two retry modes, which implies when each selector applies, but it never states prerequisites, when retry is appropriate versus re-triggering or cancelling, or any exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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