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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the returned workflow includes, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how errors or unrecognized IDs are handled, or any authorization/rate-limit implications. The name implies a getter, but the description adds little beyond that.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary behavior and selection info are front-loaded, and the pointer to listWorkflows is a useful, targeted addition that earns its place.

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?

This is a simple three-parameter getter with fully documented schema parameters, so the description does not need to repeat parameter semantics. It explains how to locate a tag via listWorkflows and what the workflow result contains, which is adequate given the absence of an output schema. It could mention error behavior or uniqueness of tags, but those are relatively minor gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 under the rubric. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema: 'by tag or CID' restates tagOrId's schema description, and session_id/context are already fully documented in the schema. No additional parameter nuance is provided.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('one workflow'), and the selection criteria ('by tag or CID'). It also previews what the call returns ('actions it runs and inputs it takes'), and naming listWorkflows helps differentiate it from the sibling list tool.

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 directs users to listWorkflows when they need to find the tag, which gives useful routing for when to use the alternative. It does not spell out exclusions or broader when-not-to-use scenarios, but for a straightforward retrieval tool the guidance is sufficient.

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