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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the response bundles both published and draft state, which is non-obvious and affects how an agent should interpret results.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key fact (single ICP plus both version states) comes first. The trailing clause about the draft revision is slightly dense phrasing but still earns its place by explaining why the draft is returned.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknown: what the returned object contains (published and draft). Nothing critical to correct invocation is missing beyond optional edge-case behavior.

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 carries the burden, and it never mentions icpId, its UUID format, or what happens for an unknown id. The single parameter is self-evidently named and typed in the schema, so the practical gap is small but real.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Returns one ICP' plus a clear statement of what is included (current published version, unpublished draft, draft revision). This differentiates it from list-family siblings like listIcps and listIcpVersions implicitly, but it never names an alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 only implied: the mention that the draft revision is what 'edits and publishing require' hints this is the fetch you do before updateIcpDraft or publishIcp, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite (e.g. valid ICP id, permission to see drafts) is stated.

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