Search collected data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: it discloses the fan-out-across-workflows behavior and that matches return preview-sized (truncated) rather than full records, which is important for interpreting results. It does not state rate limits or result-count caps beyond the per-workflow limit.

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?

Three compact sentences: purpose and scope first, scoping behavior second, and the follow-up retrieval path last. Every sentence carries information and none repeats the name or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately covers what results look like (preview-sized matches) and how to get complete records. For a read-only search with 6 params, the remaining gap is the untold interaction between the workflow and workflow_id params and any result caps.

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 67%, so the schema already documents q, limit, device, and preview_chars. The description adds conceptual meaning for preview truncation and for workflow scoping, but does not explain how workflow vs workflow_id interact or what default preview size it uses. This is adequate-but-marginal value on top of 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (data collected by workflows), and clarifies the scope ('everything already collected') versus running something new. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling writ_workflow_data, which is used to fetch full records, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Clearly frames the use case ('answers data questions from past runs without running anything') and names the follow-up tool with the exact trigger ('fetch full records with writ_workflow_data'). It also explains scoping ('Scopes to one workflow when given, else fans out'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus other data siblings like writ_saved_crawl_data or writ_export_data.

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