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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds useful substance beyond that by naming the returned content (descriptions, instructions, due rules, admins), which partially compensates for the missing output schema, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what happens for an unknown flow_id.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and then the returned fields. The trailing API reference ('Elvanto: peopleFlows/steps/getAll') is minor overhead but aids traceability; nothing is padded.

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's enumeration of returned fields is what makes the definition usable. For a one-parameter read tool with a readOnly annotation, the main gaps are pagination and error behavior, which are minor.

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% for the single required parameter, so the schema already defines flow_id as the people flow's id. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate here.

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: it lists the steps belonging to a single people flow, keyed by flow_id. This distinguishes it reasonably well from elvanto_list_people_flows (the flows themselves) and elvanto_list_people_flow_step_people (people within a step), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools it could be confused with. The required flow_id is the only implied context; an agent must infer that this is the drill-down from list_people_flows.

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