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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value by noting the tool is free, and that it returns the full content body—behavioral details not present in annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose, expected input origin, and return content. No filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the return content (full body), and the source of ids. It lacks details about error behavior (e.g., not found), but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, this is adequate and only slightly incomplete.

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 schema documents output_id as a uuid with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful provenance by stating ids come from list_outputs, which helps the agent understand how to obtain a valid parameter value. This goes beyond the schema's basic type/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 a single drafted marketing output by id, with its full content body. This distinguishes it from list tools like list_outputs and other get_* siblings by emphasizing the single-output scope and the inclusion of the full 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?

It explicitly notes that ids come from list_outputs, which implies the intended workflow (use list_outputs to obtain ids, then get_output). It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, but the contextual clue is strong enough for a simple read tool.

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