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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the safety profile, and the description adds a useful precondition: the outline must already be saved. It does not describe what happens if that precondition is unmet or what the response contains, but this is a simple read operation.

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?

One short sentence that leads with the resource and includes the key precondition; no filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity, read-only tool with the parameter schema present, the description plus annotations cover the main usage context. The only notable omission is the lack of any hint about return content, but the title already conveys the core purpose.

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 schema documents guest_token's purpose and constraints, while deck_id is only type/length constrained. The description adds no parameter-level detail to compensate for the 50% schema coverage, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 title and description identify the resource as 'the writing brief' for a saved deck outline, which distinguishes it from siblings like see_deck and write_outline. It lacks an explicit verb in the description itself, relying on the title for the action.

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 'whose outline is already saved' implies this is meant to be called after write_outline, but it never explicitly says when to use it over see_deck or other deck tools. It also does not state exclusions or alternative tools.

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