List Flows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces rather than repeats them ('Read only'). It adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: result ordering ('newest first'), the shape of each record (text, dates, status, plan, what it made, last counted results), and the important caveat that results are 'last counted' rather than live, which the get_goal pointer implies can be stale.

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 read-only signal and the resource definition, followed by returned fields and then the sibling pointer, so nothing is buried. The parenthetical enumeration of Flow types makes the first sentence dense, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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, but the description compensates by enumerating the per-record fields and noting the newest-first ordering and the staleness caveat. The main remaining gap is the meaning of the status enum values and no pagination guidance, which matter for a list tool with a capped limit.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the schema documents limit ('Default 25') but leaves the status enum undocumented beyond its values. The description adds that status is a filter, but it does not explain what the five status values mean or the practical effect of limit/ordering, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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+resource and resolves the naming ambiguity by defining Flows as 'goals that became posts, a comment-to-DM automation, a page and welcome emails'. It also disambiguates from the sibling detail tool by naming postfjord_get_goal, so an agent can choose between them without opening a schema.

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 routes the agent to postfjord_get_goal 'for fresh results of one goal', which tells it when this list tool is the wrong choice. It also states the supported filter ('Filter by status') but does not say when filtering is preferable to fetching everything, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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