List workflows.

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no ordering, no scope (workspace/account context), no pagination behavior notes. With annotations carrying the burden, the description still contributes essentially zero additional context.

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 single sentence is short but earns nothing — it conveys no information beyond the tool name. This is under-specification, not effective conciseness, mirroring the LOW calibration case where a bare restatement scores 2 on this dimension.

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 simple, parameterless-required read-only list tool, the complete schema and the safety annotations mean an agent could still call it correctly. However, the description supplies no guidance on sibling selection or result scope, leaving a real but modest 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 description coverage is 100%, with page, perPage, account, and statuses all documented inline (including defaults, the 100-item cap, and the 'not a tenant or provider account ID' clarification). Per the rubric, full schema coverage sets a baseline of 3; the description adds no parameter meaning beyond it.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling list_* tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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