search_workflows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable context by stating the search is 'client-side over the listing', clarifying the performance and scope behavior beyond the annotation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence with an embedded example, front-loading the core purpose. There is no extraneous information, every word is necessary.

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 has 3 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the user's need: what it searches, how it works (client-side), and a concrete use case. It is complete for an AI agent to understand when to invoke this tool.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the high-level combination of fields searched (name, node names, node types), which is more than the sum of individual param descriptions. This helps the agent understand the full search scope.

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 clearly states the tool searches workflows by free text across name, node names, and node types. It distinguishes itself from a simple list tool by explaining it operates 'client-side over the listing' and gives a concrete example, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides a clear use case with an example ('finds e.g. every workflow using a given node type or touching a given service'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like list_workflows, which would provide clearer guidance.

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