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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. Description adds value by explaining output format (raw TOON text) and normalized fields, but doesn't disclose potential errors or exact response structure 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 extremely concise—two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds contextual detail without fluff. It's optimally structured for quick agent consumption.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description explains the output format and sequencing ('Call before flows_run'), but fails to explain what 'identifier' relates to. With only one parameter, this omission leaves the tool ambiguous for agents, making it incomplete.

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?

The description completely omits any explanation of the 'identifier' parameter. With 0% schema coverage, the description was expected to clarify what identifier refers to (e.g., flow ID), but it doesn't mention it at all. This is a critical gap for a single-parameter tool.

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 tool's function: returning raw TOON text for a flow's input/output spec, with specific fields mentioned. It distinguishes itself by explicitly instructing to call before flows_run, which differentiates it from other flow tools like flows_list.

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 states when to use it ('Call before flows_run'), providing a direct usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., flows_list for listing flows), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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