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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent read operation, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds useful context that the result includes the draft revision and that the call is free, but it does not describe the document's return shape or any size/complexity considerations.

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 a single compact sentence with the core subject front-loaded, followed by the draft/published distinction and a note that it is free. It is efficient, though the phrase 'with the draft revision. Free.' is slightly telegraphic.

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 tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is returned and the draft/published choice. It does not need to explain return values in depth, though a note on document format or typical size could add value.

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 must carry the parameter semantics, and it does: 'draft (what you are editing)' versus 'what is published' maps directly to the enum values. The meaning of 'which' is clear even without schema-level descriptions.

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 clearly identifies the operation as retrieving the full design document and distinguishes the two retrieval targets: draft versus published. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like help_center_design_guide or help_center_preview, but the purpose itself is specific and unmistakable.

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?

The description implies when the draft option is appropriate (what you are editing) versus the published version, which gives some selection guidance. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as help_center_design_guide, help_center_preview, or help_center_update_design.

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