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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the specific scope of what is read (optimistic revision, preview, schedule) which is useful, but it does not disclose response format or any additional behavioral traits like auth requirements or potential errors. Given annotations handle the risk profile, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action 'Read' and resource, with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope.

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 simple read operation with one parameter and annotations providing safety info, the description is fairly complete. It names the key data returned (draft, revision, preview, schedule) even without an output schema. However, it does not explain what 'optimistic revision' or 'preview' entail, leaving minor ambiguity for an agent.

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% and the only parameter 'lineKey' is already described with an example ('v1'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' followed by the resource 'one line draft' and its components, distinguishing it from creation, deletion, and publishing tools. It clearly identifies the tool's scope as read-only retrieval of draft data, making it unambiguous among siblings like preview_line_draft and publish_line_draft.

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 usage when needing to inspect a line draft and related revision/preview/schedule data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it list exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives, but the read-only framing gives some context.

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