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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds cost ('Free') and, importantly, the empty-slot semantics ('a null current means the slot is empty'). That is genuine behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three tight clauses: purpose first, then cost/safety, then the parameter source. Every clause carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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 usefully sketches the return (current version + document, with null meaning empty). For a single-parameter read tool backed by read-only annotations, this is nearly complete; only the slot format is left implicit.

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% and the description must compensate. It does add the crucial provenance of the slot ('from soclo_work_drafts_discover'), but gives no sense of the slot's format or constraints (pattern/length) beyond what the schema enforces.

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), resource (the durable work draft), and scope (in one slot), plus what is returned (current version and document). It is clearly distinguishable from soclo_work_drafts_discover and soclo_work_drafts_edit without opening any 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 a clear prerequisite/route: 'Take the slot from soclo_work_drafts_discover,' which tells the agent this is a follow-up read once a slot is known. It stops short of an explicit when-not statement (e.g. use discover to list slots), but the context is unambiguous.

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