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

Annotations only flag non-read-only, idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds cost ('charged as one compare (refunded if it fails)'), what is and is not touched ('draft's file, preview and page images are reused... live version and every link are untouched'), who may call it, and a full refusal-code taxonomy with the intervening state (status processing until the compare lands).

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?

Front-loaded with the action and trigger, and almost every clause carries operational meaning. It is a dense, multi-clause wall of text — the baseVersion persistence rule in particular takes rereading — but there is no filler to cut.

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?

Covers authorization, refusal codes, cost, side effects on the live version, and the return shape { docId, draft } with the transient processing state even though no output schema exists. The prompt-injection warning about untrusted titles/summaries in results is a meaningful addition.

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 already 100%, but the description supplies non-obvious semantics the schema cannot: baseVersion 'becomes the draft's base' and the sticky rule (kept while that version exists, compared with live once removed), plus how the live version's number is interpreted and the uploadId fallback chain to this connection's own open draft.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Compares a draft (lnkdrp_stage_pdf) again') and further disambiguates the comparison target: live version, or a chosen baseVersion. This separates it cleanly from siblings like lnkdrp_publish_draft, lnkdrp_stage_pdf and lnkdrp_get_draft.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it when lnkdrp_get_draft says stale: true, or a replace, restore or publish answered staleDrafts'. It also explains why (pages-changed/summary describe the wrong base) and what the alternative states mean, leaving nothing to inference.

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