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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by revealing data storage practices (Stackcut stores call arguments, hashes account keys, never stores IPs), a privacy warning ('don't send personal data or secrets'), and a semantic caveat ('A reviewed playbook is not a completed customer migration'). These are behavioral details that the annotations do not cover, and they do not contradict the declared hints.

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 lengthy but well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose with a colon, then lists deliverables, adds a cautionary note, and concludes with privacy guidelines. Every sentence earns its place, though it is slightly verbose. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of a workflow-recipe tool.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it lists what the runbook will contain (evidence, decisions, steps, tests, rollout, rollback, maintenance, templates, digest), warns about interpretation, and explains data handling. An agent can confidently invoke the tool and understand what to expect in the response without needing additional documentation.

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 100% – the id parameter already specifies it comes from search_workflow_recipes with an example. The description restates this source but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter and the description adds nothing substantive.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving a full workflow recipe ('One runbook from search_workflow_recipes in full'), distinguishes it from the generic get_recipe by specifying the source, and enumerates the exact contents of the returned runbook (evidence, decisions, steps, tests, etc.). The verb 'get' plus the specific resource and the explicit source make the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by stating the recipe comes from search_workflow_recipes and the parameter description repeats the source, making it clear this tool follows a search. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives (like get_build_packet) or provide a when-not-to-use clause. The context is clear but lacks explicit routing or exclusions.

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