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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely useful context: output is portable JSON with self-contained HTML, and the recipient's email address and private tokens are deliberately excluded. That redaction detail is not derivable from annotations or schema.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the payload/return shape is front-loaded before the redaction note and the optional parameter. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 does the job of characterizing the return value (portable JSON with self-contained HTML) and the redaction behavior. The only gap is that it never explains the required managementToken or where it comes from, which matters for a private-draft export.

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 50%: revision is documented in the schema and the description only mildly extends it (retained vs. current revision), while managementToken has no description anywhere. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds marginal value but does not compensate for the undocumented required auth parameter.

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: 'Returns a private draft as portable JSON containing its complete self-contained game HTML.' The 'private draft'/'portable JSON' framing distinguishes it from sibling get_gift and get_gift_history, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only conditional sentence concerns the revision parameter ('selects a retained revision instead of the current version'), which is parameter behavior, not task routing. An agent must infer from the name alone when to pick this over get_gift or get_made_game.

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