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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the return content: the full result as text plus a site link. It stops short of describing the not-yet-ready state, 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The telegraphic, slightly fragmented grammar ('Where a draft page stands.') costs a point but nothing is wasted.

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 partially compensates by noting the returned text and link. However, it omits the polling relationship to start_draft and the not-ready outcome, leaving the workflow incomplete for an agent.

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% and the single 'id' param is documented as 'The id start returned.' The description adds nothing about the identifier, so the baseline 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 title 'Check a draft page' plus 'Where a draft page stands' make it clear this retrieves the status of an existing draft, distinct from the sibling start_draft. The phrasing is idiomatic/metaphorical rather than a crisp verb+resource, and it never names start_draft as the complementary tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus start_draft, no mention that it should be polled after starting a draft, and no exclusions. The 'When it is ready' clause hints at polling but gives no actual usage instruction.

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