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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by defining the return as a preview card showing shopper-facing appearance and changes, which goes beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss limits or edge cases such as previewing a deleted draft.

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?

It is a single efficient sentence with the main action front-loaded. The parenthetical adds useful clarification without bloat, though the phrasing 'draft or published change' is slightly ambiguous.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and output nature. The missing explanation of the required draft_id parameter and the lack of guidance on when previewing is appropriate leave notable gaps.

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 50%: the 'store' parameter is well documented, but the required 'draft_id' has no schema description and the tool description does not explain it either. The phrase 'draft or published change' creates mild ambiguity about what identifiers are accepted without compensating for the undocumented required parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Show a draft...') and explains the output as a preview card showing 'what shoppers will see, what changes.' This distinguishes it reasonably well from siblings like edit_draft or request_publish, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_item or list_drafts.

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?

Usage is implied: preview a draft or published change visually before acting on it. However, it never states when to choose this over siblings such as get_item, request_publish, or stage_changes, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an existing draft.

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