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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the single-draft return (document_markdown), the multiple-draft return (needs_selection + previews), the required display layout, and an explicit prohibition against certain interaction mechanisms. This is substantial operational context beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loads the key workflow: no args first, then preview_id after user selection. It is dense and somewhat run-on, but every sentence contributes actionable information and there is 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical call flow, return modes, and interaction constraints. It stops short of detailing the structure of previews or error behavior, but it is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly in the described workflow.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds workflow context around preview_id by explaining the first-call/second-call sequence, but it largely restates the schema's own optional/omit/pass guidance and adds nothing for notification_message.

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 states that this is the Preview PDF button and explains its two operating modes: no-arg draft listing and preview_id lookup. It is behaviorally specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as list_previews or preview_document, leaving some ambiguity about when this tool is preferred over those.

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 gives explicit sequencing: call with no args first, then call again with preview_id after the user replies with a number or title. It also clearly forbids using collect_user_input or emit_display input for preview_id. The main gap is that it does not name sibling alternatives or explain when another preview/list tool would be more appropriate.

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