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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return payload (spec, SVG layout, Mermaid diagram), which annotations cannot convey, though it omits behavior on missing/unknown ids.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the action, the identifier inputs, and the return contents with no filler.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, inputs, and outputs. Minor gaps remain (error behavior for unknown ids, whether authToken is required in headerless contexts) but nothing blocking.

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 100%, so both `id` and `authToken` are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only that `id` accepts either a jobId or visualId, which the schema already says — a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (retrieve) and resource (VisualSpec workflow) plus what the result contains: spec, SVG layout, and Mermaid diagram. It clearly reads as a read operation distinct from compile/revise/autofix siblings, though it never names a sibling for contrast.

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?

"Retrieve an existing VisualSpec workflow" implies usage (an already-compiled workflow exists) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance against siblings like detect_workflows or compile_workflow, and doesn't say what happens if the workflow hasn't been compiled yet.

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