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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds real value: preview_url is a private sharing link, valid until preview_expires_at, 30 minutes after issue, and re-retrieval is required for a new one. Missing are failure modes (expired link, missing ID, permission requirements on drafts), so not a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the security/expiry caveat, then the non-publishing scope. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 does the necessary work by naming the returned payload fields and explaining preview link lifecycle. It stops short of stating permission requirements or error behavior, which matter for reading an unpublished draft.

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 coverage is only 50% — the 'id' parameter is documented but 'kind' (enum posts/pages) carries no description. The description never mentions either parameter, so nothing compensates for the coverage gap beyond the self-explanatory enum values.

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 ('Read') and resource ('a complete editor draft and its revision'), then enumerates exactly what comes back: native elements, taxonomy, authors, preview_url. 'Draft' and the closing 'Does not publish.' separate it from get_published/list_published without needing to open 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?

Gives clear operating context: retrieve again for a fresh link, and it explicitly excludes publishing ('Does not publish'), which routes the agent to publish_content. It does not explicitly name list_content vs get_content as the selection rule, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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