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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description redundantly restates 'no mutation'. It does add genuinely new behavioral context by declaring the data boundary — only opted-in public draft state is returned, never secret or private text — which is not derivable from the annotations. Missing error behavior for an unknown or non-opted-in ref.

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?

One tight semicolon-joined sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and no filler. The compressed phrasing ('opted-in public draft state') is slightly cryptic but earns its space.

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 with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but leaves gaps: what the returned 'draft state' contains, and what happens when the ref is missing or not opted in.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for public_ref, yet it only names the parameter ('by public_ref') without explaining its format, provenance, or what constitutes a valid reference. The single parameter remains semantically opaque.

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 draft status) plus the lookup key (public_ref) and the scope (opted-in public drafts). This is enough to separate it from submit_draft and search_public_drafts, though it never names a sibling 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?

Usage is only implied: 'by public_ref' suggests you call it when you already hold a draft reference. There is no statement of when to prefer this over search_public_drafts or report_status, and no prerequisites or failure conditions.

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