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

With only readOnlyHint=true available, the description adds substantial behavioral context: login is required, the response is a summary without full source text, image verification status and importState are included, and rejected means the original basis is missing. It also constrains downstream actions, telling the agent not to fabricate missing content and how to proceed to update or publish.

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 compact and front-loaded: it leads with login requirement and summary scope, then lists key return fields and limitations, then gives workflow rules and a warning. Every clause carries operational meaning for an agent using the tool.

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 read-only draft-inspection tool with no output schema and a fully documented single parameter, the description covers the important return fields, the missing full text limitation, and the update/publish workflow. It leaves some ambiguity around exact enum values such as importState and rejected states, but overall it is sufficient to call and act on the tool 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 100% and the single composeId parameter is already documented in the schema as the draft id returned by import_activity_draft or list_activity_drafts. The description adds no additional parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource and scope: it returns an activity draft summary with specific fields (missing/questions/nextQuestion, image verification, importState) and explicitly excludes the original full text. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling list tools such as list_activity_drafts, so it falls short of the strongest sibling differentiation.

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 gives concrete workflow guidance: use nextQuestion for follow-up, call update_activity_draft afterward, and call publish_activity_draft with the current version when missing is empty. It also warns against supplementing rejected content. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus list_activity_drafts or get_activity.

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