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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: returned fields, expiry after 14 days, stale/base/live version semantics, diff markers, ended-draft behavior, permission-based not_found, and ambiguous-draft validation details. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 front-loaded with the core read action, and each sentence carries useful return-value or edge-case information. It is a dense single paragraph, but the length is largely justified because there is no output schema to explain these fields.

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 fully carries the burden of explaining what comes back: version fields, changed fields, diff markers, publishers, sent counts, campaign usage, draft expiry, ended-draft behavior, and error cases. It is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the draft_ambiguous validation behavior and the not_found outcome when the caller may not see a template.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Reads one email template draft." It immediately itemizes the draft-specific data returned, making clear this is a single-draft inspection tool rather than a list, update, publish, or live-template read.

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 by the operation and by naming lnkdrp_list_drafts and an update response as sources for draftId. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with lnkdrp_get_email_template, lnkdrp_list_drafts, or the publish/discard draft tools, so the agent must infer when this specific read is preferred.

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