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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns only terminal statuses, the exact return shape, and its relationship to canvas chips. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a simple one-parameter read, this is sufficient.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the return shape. Every clause earns its place: the status types, the relationship to canvas chips, the alternative tools, and the re-fetch behavior. No fluff 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (per context signals) and the description already provides the return shape, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing. The single required parameter is clearly identified, the behavior is described, and the output format is stated. It is complete for a simple get 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?

The schema has zero description coverage for workflow_id, so the description carries the burden of clarifying its meaning. It does so by stating the tool operates 'for a workflow', making it clear workflow_id is the workflow identifier. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description reinforces its purpose without adding unnecessary detail.

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 retrieves the latest terminal status (completed/error/skipped) and error per node for a workflow, with the specific verb 'get' and resource 'node statuses'. It distinguishes itself from run_workflow/run_nodes by noting they already include this map, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does and how it differs from related operations.

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?

Explicitly says 'use this to re-fetch WITHOUT re-running' and names the alternatives (run_workflow/run_nodes) that already provide the same data. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, leaving no ambiguity about its role relative to sibling tools.

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