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

With readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false already covering the safety profile, the description adds real value by disclosing what it deliberately withholds: the email, code and management token are never returned, and a public listing URL appears only if published. It does not say what happens when the draft is still unpublished or whether polling is safe, which keeps this short of a 5.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 tightly packed sentences: the action and its trigger come first, the return contract second. Every clause earns its place, including the negative disclosure about withheld credentials.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does it well by naming status and the conditional listing URL while ruling out sensitive fields. The gap is the unpublished/error path and any polling guidance, which an agent calling this right after a timeout would plausibly need.

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 0%, but there is only one parameter and it is a UUID-typed draft_id whose meaning ('check a draft') is implied by the description. No format, sourcing or lookup guidance is offered, so this is minimum viable rather than additive.

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 states a concrete action and resource: retrieve the status of a previously submitted draft, including a public listing URL when published. The phrase 'after a timeout' narrows the scope usefully, though it never references any sibling tool, so an agent must infer on its own that this differs from get_sale or search_sales.

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?

'Check a draft after a timeout' supplies the triggering situation, which is more than nothing, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. use get_sale once published). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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