ghl_workflow_get_definition

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: rate-limit behavior including no Retry-After header, separate read/write budgets, log retention windows, and the critical version-counter semantics that prevent silently overwriting a concurrent builder edit. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior structured fields cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with availability and ordering, which is the right priority. However, the limited-availability caveat and the 403 code are stated twice (in the header block and again in the prose), creating redundancy that slightly dilutes the otherwise well-organized text.

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 two-parameter read tool, this covers everything an agent needs: availability gating, call sequencing, round-trip contract with the update tool, concurrency-safe version handling, and rate-limit constraints. No output schema exists, but the round-trip guarantee substitutes for describing the return shape.

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% for both locationId and workflowId, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description only reinforces workflowId via the endpoint path and adds no per-parameter format or constraint detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource — 'Read a workflow as a complete definition' — and explicitly distinguishes it from Update Workflow Definition by noting the definition round-trips. An agent can tell this apart from validate/create/update siblings without opening a 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?

Provides an explicit suggested ordering (get step types -> build -> validate -> create -> publish) and names the sibling tools involved. It also documents the exact failure condition (403 WORKFLOW_API_NOT_ENABLED_FOR_LOCATION, explicitly 'not a token or scope problem'), which prevents an agent from misrouting to auth debugging.

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