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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful runtime constraint that the originating canvas must be online, plus the fact that the draft is 'private', but says nothing about failure modes, access/permission errors, or why a controlToken is required.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the payload it returns, followed by the precondition. Efficient with no filler, though the dense field enumeration is a run-on list.

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, listing the returned fields is appropriate and partly compensates. However, for a tool with two required, fully undocumented parameters, the description leaves the caller unsure what draftID and controlToken must contain and what errors to expect.

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 description coverage is 0% and neither parameter is mentioned in the description. The word 'private' loosely hints that controlToken is an access credential and draftID identifies the draft, but no syntax, source, or validation meaning is added for either required field.

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 ('Reads') plus the resource ('draft') and enumerates the returned fields (source, state, data, target display, version, expiry, preview URL). This clearly separates it from write-oriented siblings like update_draft, discard_draft, and publish_draft, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Provides one precondition ('Requires the original canvas online'), which is useful routing context, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as get_canvas or prepare_draft. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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