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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes beyond them by disclosing what comes back (steps, settings, schedule, run history) and by warning that update_workflow is a full step replacement rather than a merge. That replacement semantics is non-obvious behavioral context an agent could not infer from 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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the payload, the second defines the workflow-position rule and its rationale. The return content is front-loaded before the usage warning.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing return value — and it does, enumerating steps, settings, schedule, and last runs. For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter already documents that it accepts an id or a name. The description adds no format, resolution, or ambiguity-handling detail beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource plus the exact scope of the payload: one workflow, every step with settings, its schedule, and last-run history. The phrase 'One workflow in full' cleanly separates it from the plural list_workflows and from the write-side siblings create/update/delete_workflow.

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 instructs to read before changing anything, and names the alternative it protects against ('update_workflow replaces the steps you pass'). The consequence ('you cannot keep what you have not seen') gives a concrete reason to prefer this tool first, which is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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