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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable non-obvious context: reads-only with no generation/creation, a 7-day lifetime on the operator's account, and that the result includes the full draft state accumulated since check_generation.

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 sentences with no filler; the core read behavior and key scoping detail are front-loaded, followed by concrete use cases and the lifetime constraint. Every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 single-parameter read tool with a full output schema and safety annotations, the description covers behavior, usage timing, data scope, and retention. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning by specifying the draft is identified by draftId and that the value originates from check_generation or a previous tool result. This helps the agent source the parameter correctly beyond the schema's pattern and description.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('booth draft by its draftId') and differentiates it from related tools by noting it returns the same summary as check_generation plus accumulated draft data. It is clearly distinguishable from create_booth and update_booth_draft.

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 gives concrete when-to-use scenarios: when the start_booth job is untracked, before create_booth, or to confirm update_booth_draft changes. It does not explicitly name tools to avoid, but the referenced workflow tools make the intended context clear.

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