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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'without publishing it,' which reinforces non-mutating behavior but adds no further behavioral context such as return format, error handling, or visibility of the preview. It is consistent with annotations, with no contradiction.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff 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?

While the tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, the description does not clarify what a 'preview' returns nor how it differs from get_line_draft. Since there is no output schema to fill this gap, the description carries the burden and falls short of fully contextualizing the behavior.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter lineKey, including an example ('"v1"'), so the schema already fully documents the meaning. The description adds no extra parameter detail, landing at the baseline score of 3.

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 'Preview' with the resource 'one line draft' and adds the clarifying phrase 'without publishing it,' which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like publish_line_draft. It unambiguously states the action and scope.

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 tool is used to inspect a draft without publishing, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative tools like get_line_draft or publish_line_draft. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the usage context somewhat implicit.

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