Search workflows

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, but the description adds substantial context: local-only matching within searchIn fields, upstream active filtering, a 50-result cap, 'value-free matches,' explicit scan state, and permission requirements. This is rich behavioral disclosure that the annotations alone do not provide.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: it covers functionality, filter semantics, pagination instructions, an alternative, a permission note, and return behavior in four tightly-woven sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundant or filler language.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (pagination, local filtering, permission, cap, and explicit scan state), the description covers all essential aspects without needing to explain return values (since an output schema exists). It is fully self-contained for correct selection and 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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description surpasses schema descriptions by explaining the interaction between query and searchIn ('query is matched locally only in the fields named by searchIn') and by adding critical semantics for cursor usage and the 50-match cap, which affects the meaning of the limit parameter. This provides genuine additional value beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Search one workflow page for a case-insensitive substring,' a specific verb+resource+scope combination that immediately conveys what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling n8n_workflows_list by explicitly stating 'This is not a global index; use n8n_workflows_list for an unsearched page.'

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?

Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it directs users to n8n_workflows_list for unsearched pages, explains the pagination contract ('Omit cursor for page one, then keep query, searchIn, active, and limit unchanged when passing nextCursor'), and states the required permission ('workflow-list permission'). This goes beyond implicit usage and identifies alternatives.

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