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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It explains the status lifecycle ('awaiting_human' until the preview is opened, 'pending' while generating) and exactly what the completed response includes: a free preview, locked section titles, and the unlock URL. This is rich behavioral detail.

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 leads with the core action, then packs the relevant status behavior and response contents into a compact and well-ordered form. There is no filler, and each sentence earns 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description successfully covers the normal usage flow, the status values, and the returned data. The only real gap is that it does not name the exact terminal status field/value the agent should look for when the draft is complete, nor does it describe what happens with an invalid preview_id.

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?

The input schema already documents preview_id fully, including its pattern and that it is returned by start_contract_draft. The description reinforces that lineage but does not add new parameter-level meaning such as examples, format specifics, or failure handling, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'Check a contract draft from start_contract_draft', and clearly describes what the tool returns. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like start_contract_draft, which creates the draft, and get_checkout_link, which handles payment.

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 description gives clear context by naming start_contract_draft as the source of the preview_id, so an agent knows this is the follow-up polling step after draft creation. It does not explicitly contrast when not to use it versus alternatives, but the intended context is clear.

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