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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description is free to add freshness context: the buyer may have edited the draft in the app, so reads reflect current state. It also discloses the substantive response contents, which matters because there is no output schema. It omits failure behavior, such as what happens with a bad or rotated token.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and the long enumeration that follows is justified because no output schema exists to convey what comes back. The middle section is a single sprawling sentence and could be broken up for scanability, but little is genuinely 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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete about payload categories: unmet requirements, price, diffs since sending, terms hash, order/payment/report state, buyer-side edits, and available next actions. It leaves error handling and any pagination or size limits unstated.

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 all three parameters (id, since, token) are documented in the schema, including the {unchanged: true} short-circuit for `since` and the privacy caveat for `token`. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

"Read a Plumbline order draft as it stands" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the enumeration that follows (fields, companies, missing requirements, indicative price, firm offer, state) pins down exactly what is returned. The verb cleanly separates it from siblings update_order_draft and send_order_draft without needing to name them.

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 closing sentence gives a concrete trigger: read before acting on what the buyer says, because they may have changed the draft in the app. That is real when-to-use guidance rather than implied usage. It does not name an explicit alternative or a when-not-to-use case, which keeps it below a 5.

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