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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds genuinely new semantic context: drafts are never published and draft_planned_for is a planning date only, which prevents misinterpretation of the field. It still omits any auth or return-shape detail.

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?

Three short sentences with the core operation front-loaded and no filler. The draft_planned_for clarification earns its place by disambiguating a field, though the sentence count is slightly more than the minimal single-operation statement.

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-by-id with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it clarifies the resource semantics and the required argument source. It could still note the workspace scoping behavior for reads or what the returned draft contains, but neither is essential to call it correctly.

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 50%, so half the parameters (query, brand_id) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds meaning only for id (source it exactly from list_drafts), leaving the workspace_id and query overrides unexplained. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial schema coverage.

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 and resource ('Get a single post draft by id'), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly contrast with near siblings like aidelly_get_post or aidelly_update_draft, but the reference to aidelly_list_drafts gives useful framing.

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 concrete prerequisite: ids must be copied exactly from aidelly_list_drafts, which tells the agent where to source the required argument. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., get_post vs get_draft) and no conditions that would exclude its use.

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