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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the authorization requirement (staff permissions), the non-mutating scope ('No publishing'), and a negative guarantee that private storage URLs are not exposed. What remains unstated is whether the preview has any side effects and what shape the previewed content takes.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the primary mode leads, the alternative follows, and the permissions/safety constraints close it out. Every clause 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?

For a 4-parameter preview tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, mode selection, authorization, and safety. It is slightly incomplete in not describing what the preview returns or clarifying that only one mode should be used at a time.

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 supply meaning, and it does: it ties page_id+language together as one mode and public_path as an alternative mode, which the bare schema cannot convey. The required 'token' parameter and the silent defaults (page_id='HOME', language='ru', public_path='') are never explained, leaving a 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?

States a specific verb (preview) and two concrete resources/modes: saved draft context keyed by page_id/language, and a saved public_summaries override keyed by public_path. It is clearly a non-mutating read of saved content, which distinguishes it in spirit from online_content_edit/online_article_update, though it never names those siblings explicitly and the jargon ('draft context', 'public_summaries override') is left undefined.

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 explicit selection logic between the tool's two modes (use page_id/language, or alternatively pass public_path) and states the staff-permission prerequisite. It stops short of telling the agent when to prefer this over online_content_get or online_article_get, so sibling routing is still left to inference.

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