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

Annotations only cover readOnly/openWorld/destructive; the description adds the material behavior an agent cannot get from them: the two-phase preview-then-confirm flow, the guarantee that nothing is published, the fact that a write consumes the plan's article allowance, and the ~1 minute duration of a confirmed write.

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?

Four dense clauses with the purpose front-loaded, the pipeline parenthetical clarifying what 'quality pipeline' means, and the safety-critical preview/confirm rule spotlighted at the end. No filler sentences.

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 still conveys the essential result semantics (a non-published draft, preview vs. persisted write, quota cost, latency). It does not explain what the preview response looks like or whether a preview leaves any artifact behind, which is the only real gap for a 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage.

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 question, brand and confirm are all already documented in the schema, including the preview semantics of confirm. The description reinforces the confirm gating and the single-brand default for brand, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Write a DRAFT article answering one buyer question') plus the scope constraint that it never publishes, which cleanly separates it from publish_article, refresh_article and delete_article in the sibling list. An agent can tell what this tool produces without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit operating sequence: 'Preview first; confirm: true writes it', which tells the agent exactly how to invoke it safely. It implicitly routes publishing elsewhere ('Never publishes') but never names publish_article as the alternative, so the exclusion is inferred rather than stated.

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