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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds real behavioral context: the four categories of findings produced, the definition of `valid` (no error-severity findings) and the advisory nature of warnings/info, plus the note that the owning service re-validates on submit. This is meaningfully beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the no-side-effects guarantee, followed by return semantics and the prerequisite tool. Dense but every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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 a single nested-object parameter, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: validation scope, severity semantics, and the authoring prerequisite. An agent can decide to call it and interpret the result without further information.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds value by cross-referencing get_workflow_definition_schema / get_*_version as the source of the required shape and clarifying that validation here does not replace server-side validation.

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 ('Statically check a workflow definition') and emphasizes the key scoping constraint 'WITHOUT running it', which immediately separates it from execute/run_workflow and from the create_workflow* siblings.

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 when to use it ('to catch authoring mistakes before create_workflow / create_workflow_version') and names the prerequisite authoring aid ('Author the definition against get_workflow_definition_schema'), leaving no inference required about placement in the workflow lifecycle.

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