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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about output format ('raw TOON text, no UI', 'lean entries without preview URLs'). It does not discuss pagination or auth, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

Three short sentences, each with a distinct job: output format, content leanness, and alternative tool guidance. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description tells the agent what the response looks like and which sibling tools to use for other needs, but it omits parameter usage, pagination behavior, and response field details. With no output schema and low schema description coverage, this leaves gaps for a 4-parameter tool.

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?

None of the four parameters (page, query, perPage, ownership) are described in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate but only addresses output format, leaving the agent to infer parameter behavior from names alone.

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 states that this tool exposes the flows catalog as raw TOON text with lean entries and no UI, and it distinguishes itself from flows_show and flows_get for inline picking and single-flow specs. It lacks an explicit verb like 'lists,' but the tool name and the contrast with sibling tools make the purpose clear.

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 tells the agent when to use alternatives: 'For an inline picker use flows_show; for a single flow input/output spec use flows_get.' It also warns that the output is raw TOON text with no UI and no preview URLs, which helps the agent avoid using it for display-heavy tasks.

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