Read a workflow method

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Free and read-only' largely restates them. It does add that the record exposes 'current availability', hinting at stateful/live data, but says nothing about auth requirements, caching freshness, or error behavior when a method_id is unknown.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope before the content list and the usage hint. 'Free and read-only' is the only near-redundant clause against the annotations, but it is short and not disruptive.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is the main thing an agent needs to decide whether to call it. The absence of any statement about what happens with an invalid method_id is the only real gap.

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 coverage is 0% and the single method_id property has no inline description. The description compensates minimally by framing it as the identifier that selects exactly one workflow method, which is the minimum needed but adds no format, length, or validity detail.

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 precise verb+resource: 'Read one workflow method by method_id', and enumerates what the record contains (required inputs, script rules, evidence, limitations, availability). The singular 'one workflow method' implicitly separates it from the sibling list_workflows, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Use the returned method and capability digests in a plan' gives a downstream-usage hint, which is real but thin guidance. It never states when to prefer this over list_workflows or the plan tools (prepare_workflow_plan, get_workflow_plan), so the when/when-not decision is left to inference.

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