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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true), the description discloses that the preview is a simplified light-theme image, not a pixel-perfect export, and that no edit token is required. This sets accurate expectations about fidelity and cost.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides details about view options, fidelity, and usage frequency. Every sentence adds value with no filler.

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 simple read-only preview tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output format, view options, fidelity caveat, and usage frequency. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description only restates the view values ('fit' for complete layout, 'camera' for published camera) without adding new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('render') and resource ('current drawing') with an output format (1200x630 PNG) and purpose ('inspect arrangement and labels'), which clearly distinguishes it from data retrieval tools like get_drawing and editing tools like set_drawing.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool ('before deciding whether to edit') and when not to ('Do not call by default after every edit'), and marks it as 'OPTIONAL.' It does not name a sibling alternative explicitly, but the contextual guidance is clear enough.

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