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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it checks the pending scheduled publish if one exists, and it redacts outbound auth secrets identically to get_config, warning the agent about sensitive output.

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, both purposeful: the first front-loads the operation and its diff scope, and the second adds the security-relevant redaction behavior. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 parameterless, annotated read-only tool, the description is complete: it states what will be diffed, the scheduled-publish exception, the scope of changes, and the redaction behavior. Nothing else is needed to call it correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is complete, so there are no parameter semantics the description needs to explain. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool gets a baseline 4.

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 names the specific action 'Preview' and the resource (the config diff against Save & Publish or the pending scheduled publish), then enumerates exactly what is included: changed lines, endpoints, targets, and project-level settings. This makes its function distinct from get_config/rollback_config even without naming them.

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 implies the intended use—inspect changes before Save & Publish or when a scheduled publish is pending—but it never explicitly tells an agent when to choose this over alternatives such as rollback_config, get_config, or list_config_revisions, nor does it name any exclusions.

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