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

Adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'pure and local; nothing is sent to Cairn', 'Budget is fixed at USD 0; payments are not enabled', and the requirement to surface the full request for approval. This is valuable given readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already cover the safety profile. A 5 would warrant noting any side effects or the fixed nature of the returned payload.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Slightly redundant in places ('pure and local' restated as 'nothing is sent to Cairn'), but every sentence carries useful information.

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?

With no output schema, the description does well to explain the returned artifact ('show exactly what would be published') and the approval workflow. The remaining gaps (e.g., what fields the returned request contains) are minor for a preview tool with annotations covering its safety profile.

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 57%, above the 50% threshold, so the schema does much of the work. The description maps content to goal/source_urls/acceptance_criteria/duration_hours and clarifies the budget constraint, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already documents for source_urls, min_independent, and max_contributors. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Draft an open A2A source-review task') with a clear scope qualifier ('show exactly what would be published'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling cairn_a2a_create_task. The word 'preview' in the name plus 'nothing is sent to Cairn' leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Gives clear operating context ('show the returned request to the user in full and ask for approval of this exact request'), which tells the agent how to use the output. However, it never explicitly names the alternative (cairn_a2a_create_task) or states the when-to-use condition, 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.