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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether unsaved edits are included, whether it is expensive or rate-limited, or what a rendered preview looks like, despite there being no output schema.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, with the usage restriction first and the purpose second. However, the brevity is achieved by omitting necessary content, and the first sentence's internal-facing phrasing ("Kooga's views") wastes space on information an agent cannot act on.

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, 0% parameter coverage, and no description of the rendered result, an agent lacks what it needs to call this confidently. It is only a two-parameter read tool, which keeps the bar low, but the missing return-shape and parameter meaning are real gaps for a rendering operation.

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 the description says nothing about either parameter. Neither pieceId nor workspaceId is explained, and the optional workspaceId's relationship to the article (why it might be needed, what happens if omitted) is left entirely undocumented in both places.

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?

"An article as it stands, rendered" restates the title and the tool name rather than explaining the operation, but at least implies rendering current article content. It gives no indication of what the preview contains (draft body? metadata? rendered HTML?) and offers nothing to separate it from siblings like previewCampaign, previewFlowStep, or previewSend.

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?

The clause "of no use to call otherwise" does communicate a negative condition, which is more than nothing, but it is phrased as an owner-restriction ("For Kooga's views only") rather than actionable agent guidance. No positive trigger, prerequisites, or named alternative is given, so an agent cannot decide when this tool is the right choice.

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