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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond them: data provenance caveats ('Article draft content is local and is not a provider-verified copy; queued Note content is stored on the scheduled Note') and the no-provider-contact constraint.

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 purpose is good, but the middle sentence is a laundry list of return fields ('revision, draftId, destination, timing, cover...issues, and next action') that largely duplicates the output schema, which already exists. That sentence does not fully earn its place.

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-only inspection tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and the important provenance/staleness caveat. The main remaining gap is the unexplained 'id'/'kind' parameters, which neither description nor schema documents.

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 carry the burden, yet it never explains 'id' (what identifier, which namespace) and only obliquely implies 'kind' via 'Note or Article'. Two undocumented parameters are left for the agent to guess at.

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 (Inspect), resource (one scheduled Note or Article), and a distinguishing scope ('using stored Narrareach evidence without contacting a provider'). This clearly separates it from get_draft/get_note and from the amend/reschedule siblings.

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?

The phrase 'without contacting a provider' implies the usage context (a cached, non-live readiness check), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. use get_draft to fetch live draft content). Usage is only implied.

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