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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies that this tool does NOT return live node configs, which is a key non-obvious behavior. It also aligns with readOnlyHint, providing no contradiction.

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 concise (three sentences), front-loads the purpose, and structures the information logically: what it does, what it doesn't do, parameter format, and alternatives. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter format, usage guidance, and distinction from related tools. It is complete without being verbose.

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 explains the parameter format explicitly with an example ('type:operation' pairs like ['automation-slack:send_message_to_channel']). Since the schema itself has no description, this fully compensates and clarifies the parameter usage.

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: it returns the config schema for a node type+operation, and explicitly distinguishes it from get_node which returns live saved configs. The verb 'returns' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it labels itself as a 'manual fallback' and directs users to search_operations for intent lookup and update_workflow for building, making the usage boundaries clear.

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