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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real semantic context beyond that: which version body is returned and what version numbers accompany it. It stops short of describing failure behavior (e.g., neither slug nor id supplied) or the shape of the returned definition.

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 filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the alternative-tool pointer last. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover safety; the description fills the important gap about version resolution. Minor omission: behavior when both identifiers are given, or when neither is.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already document the 'provide this or the other' relationship. The description's 'by slug or id' only restates that, adding no syntax, format, or precedence guidance for the zero-required-parameter case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single workflow by slug or id') and precisely scopes what comes back: the current version's definition body plus latest/last-published version numbers. It cleanly distinguishes itself from get_workflow_version and from list_workflows.

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 routes the agent: 'Use get_workflow_version to read a specific older version.' It also encodes the version-resolution rule (published if any, else latest), which is exactly the decision an agent needs before calling either tool.

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