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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' implies a non-mutating read, and 'available to the authenticated tenant' clarifies scope, but the description does not mention what the output contains, whether pagination exists, or any limitations.

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?

Single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the actlist" and immediately gives the scoping qualifier. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter, list-only tool, the description is nearly complete: an agent can invoke it without additional guidance. The only gap is the lack of a return shape, but that would be nice-to-have rather than necessary for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The phrase 'available to the authenticated tenant' adds meaning by clarifying implicit scoping, which is beyond the empty schema and matches the baseline for 0 params.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('workflows'), and scope ('available to the authenticated tenant'). It clearly distinguishes this enumeration tool from siblings like get_workflow (single workflow), create_workflow, and invoke_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?

The description implies the enumeration use case: an agent calls this when it needs the set of workflows for the current tenant. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough that it is not likely to be confused with get_workflow.

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