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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds little behavioral context beyond that. The phrase 'The files remain those of the catalogue' hints that this operation doesn't change files, which aligns with readOnlyHint, but it's vague. No contradiction, but no rich behavioral disclosure either.

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 description is very short (two fragments), which is concise, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The title is more informative than the description, which is a structural problem. The description front-loads 'Elements' which is unclear.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what the return value contains. The title mentions 'interactive draft, suggestions and history' but the description says 'Elements, published version, differences and revision' – these are different concepts. The agent cannot reliably know what this tool returns or how to use it. The 'files remain those of the catalogue' sentence adds confusion rather than clarity.

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%, so the description must compensate. The only parameter is catalogue_id, which is self-explanatory from its name and pattern, but the description doesn't explain how catalogue_id relates to the returned enrichments. The description's 'The files remain those of the catalogue' suggests catalogue_id identifies the catalogue, but it's not explicit. With 0% coverage, the description should at least map the parameter to the operation.

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 title says 'Read the interactive draft, the suggestions and its history' which is clearer than the description, but the description itself is vague: 'Elements, published version, differences and revision. The files remain those of the catalogue.' It does not state a clear verb+resource. 'Elements' and 'differences' are ambiguous, and the second sentence about files is confusing. The tool name 'foliade_get_enrichments' suggests retrieving enrichments, but the description doesn't clearly say what is returned.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like foliade_update_enrichments, foliade_publish_enrichments, foliade_restore_enrichments exist, but the description doesn't differentiate. The title mentions 'interactive draft, suggestions and history' but the description doesn't explain when to call this vs foliade_get_catalogue_settings or foliade_catalogue_status.

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