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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail by describing returned content and clarifying that it does not send email, though it does not cover authorization or error behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return behavior and workflow guidance. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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 no output schema, the description explains return values and the key usage context, and annotations cover safety. It could be more complete by noting where draft_id comes from or what happens for missing/unowned IDs.

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 sole parameter draft_id is mentioned only as the identifier used to retrieve an owned card or draft. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds some meaning but does not explain format, provenance, or validation beyond the schema’s pattern.

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 uses the specific verb “Retrieve” with the resource “owned MCP card or draft” and the key “draft_id.” It also states what is returned, including latest revision, reviewed content, preview, and public URL when published, which clearly distinguishes it from list/search/status siblings.

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 a clear workflow context: “Use before adding email recipient details to an existing published card,” and clarifies “Does not send email.” It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as get_ecard_status, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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