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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only, free' adds little safety info. However, it adds valuable behavioral context: the response includes the 'full content body' and that ids are sourced from list_outputs. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact three-clause sentence (~20 words) that front-loads the core purpose. It includes no redundant filler; each clause provides distinct, useful information: what it returns, how it is fetched, and the id source.

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-only getter with one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what the response contains, and how to obtain a valid id. The sibling tool list_outputs provides listing context, making this description complete for the intended use.

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% for output_id, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that ids come from list_outputs, helping the agent understand how to populate the parameter with valid values. This is a useful supplement to the schema's bare uuid description.

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 the tool retrieves 'one drafted marketing output by id' with its 'full content body'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_outputs by focusing on a single entity, and from other get_* tools by specifying the resource type and content.

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 phrase 'Ids come from list_outputs' provides explicit context on the typical workflow: first list outputs, then retrieve a specific one. This is clear guidance, but it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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