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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the bar is lowered. The description adds useful context about what each step record carries (descriptions, due rules, admins), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or auth requirements beyond the read-only hint.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. The endpoint string ('peopleFlows/steps/getAll') is compact and useful for API mapping without bloat.

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, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, which is the key missing piece for an agent. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, lacking only return-shape details like pagination or ordering.

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% with a single well-documented flow_id parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implies that 'one people flow' scopes the lookup; it adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (steps of one people flow) and enumerates the returned content (descriptions, instructions, due rules, admins). It is distinguishable from siblings like elvanto_list_people_flows and elvanto_list_people_flow_step_people by scope, though it does not explicitly name those 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?

Usage is implied: you fetch the steps belonging to a single flow identified by flow_id. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to an alternative tool for a different granularity of flow data, so guidance remains at the minimum-viable level.

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