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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: tool success does not guarantee inline display, and address/envelope details plus final approval/payment remain browser-side. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 short and front-loads the purpose before adding caveats. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the phrasing ('existing website', 'stay in that browser') is slightly terse and could be clearer.

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 write operation with no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, especially idempotency_key, and does not explain what the returned proof or review_url looks like beyond naming the URL.

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 for all three parameters, but it mentions none of them. draft_id and version are inferable from names, but idempotency_key is entirely unexplained, leaving an important gap.

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 specific verb and resource: generate the current exact print proof and a secure review_url. It is clear enough to distinguish from a generic proof-getter, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like get_proof or show_letter.

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 caveats: this is for proofing an existing website before final approval/payment, which stays in the browser. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no direct comparison to alternatives such as get_proof or show_letter.

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