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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating what the response will include, especially missing required fields and resumeUrl, which an agent could not infer from the minimal schema alone.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the most important output categories are listed upfront. Every word contributes to the agent's ability to call the tool correctly.

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 carries the burden of explaining return value semantics, which it does by naming the four parts of a draft state. It does not discuss error/not-found behavior, but for a simple read-only, single-parameter tool the description is largely sufficient.

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 parameter's description already explains that resumeToken comes from create_draft. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb ("Returns"), a clear resource (draft), and specifies what is returned: stored field values, missing required fields, status, and resumeUrl. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_draft and update_draft without needing to open the schema.

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?

Usage is implied: the resumeToken parameter is described as "returned by create_draft," which signals sequencing after draft creation. However, the description never explicitly states when to prefer get_draft over update_draft or other siblings, nor does it mention exclusions.

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