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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns the definition body of the current version (published if any, else latest) and version numbers, clarifying exactly what data the agent will receive. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The primary function is front-loaded, and the alternative is provided immediately after. Perfectly sized for quick comprehension.

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 read-only tool with an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers the essential return content and points to the sibling for older versions. No critical gaps for an agent to call this correctly; annotations cover safety, schema covers parameters.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (slug and workflow_id) with 100% coverage. The description reinforces that the tool accepts 'slug or id' but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('single workflow'), and adds distinguishing details: it retrieves the current version's definition body and version numbers, and explicitly contrasts with get_workflow_version. This makes its purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling get_* tools.

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 an alternative: 'Use get_workflow_version to read a specific older version.' This provides clear routing guidance and implies the appropriate context for this tool (current version retrieval). No further conditions are needed.

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