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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility. It explicitly states 'Read-only: it changes nothing and stores nothing,' explains the token credential model, notes that unknown draft_id and wrong token return the same 'not found' response, and specifies that guest personal data is never returned. This is excellent behavioral disclosure.

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 is well-structured with clear sections: purpose, read-only guarantee, usage context, parameter requirements, and return values. Each sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition, achieving high information density without being overly long.

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?

Given no output schema, the description lists all returned fields and their conditional presence (e.g., public_url once published, expires_at while unpaid). It also covers security behavior and what is never returned, making the tool fully understandable for an agent without needing additional documentation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: it explains that both parameters are returned by create_wedding_draft, that the token is a secret credential, and that it appears in the preview URL. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 clearly states it reads the current state of a wedding draft created with create_wedding_draft, including publication status, URLs, and RSVP counts. This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from siblings like create_wedding_draft, get_pricing, and list_templates.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use the tool: to answer 'is my site live yet?' or 'how many have replied?' without asking the human to open the dashboard. It also clarifies the required credentials (draft_id and token) and contrasts with creating drafts, providing strong usage guidance.

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