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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The only extra signal is the word 'rendered', which hints at a display-oriented return value but never says what is returned or whether the call has side effects on the flow.

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?

Two short sentences with the access restriction front-loaded before the alternative routing, so there is no wasted preamble. The first clause is somewhat redundant with the title, which repeats the same wording verbatim.

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?

With no output schema, three undocumented parameters, and an opaque 'kind' string lacking enumerations, the description should explain what a preview returns and how to specify the target step. It only delivers the access caveat and the sibling pointer, leaving the mechanics of invocation entirely unspecified.

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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and delivers nothing: what values 'kind' accepts, what 'position' indexes into, and whether 'workspaceId' is optional or defaults are all unexplained. An agent cannot reliably construct a valid call from either the schema or the description.

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 sentence 'One email of a flow, rendered' identifies the resource (a single flow step's email) and implies a preview/rendering operation, and it distinguishes itself from readFlows by name. However, 'rendered' never specifies the form of the output (HTML? image? JSON?), and the verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated in the description.

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?

'For Kooga's views only, of no use to call otherwise' is an explicit when-not-to-use rule, and 'To see the flows, use readFlows' names the concrete alternative for the adjacent need. What is missing is a positive statement of the legitimate calling condition beyond the internal-only caveat.

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