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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-shape detail (`id`, `title`, `description`, `sourceIds`) but does not explain auth expectations, processing limits, or what 'audited by TypeSafe Jev' means in practice.

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 tight sentences, front-loading the purpose and then the return shape. Every clause contributes either routing context or output information.

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, the description usefully lists the candidate workflow fields returned. The main remaining gap is that 'audited by TypeSafe Jev' is opaque, but overall the definition gives enough context for an agent to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description maps conceptually to `text` and `sources` by mentioning raw text and multi-section documents, but adds no syntax, constraints, or guidance beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Discover distinct operational workflows'. It also scopes the input to multi-section documents or raw text and frames the action as happening before compiling, which helps distinguish it from compile_workflow, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use the tool: before compiling, on multi-section documents or raw text. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly route to alternatives, but the pre-compile context is strong enough to guide selection.

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