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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by explaining the operation is non-publishing, returns errors/warnings with meaning, and that each entry includes a node number and text. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core safety property (does not publish) and then gives interpretation rules and output format, all in an organized way.

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 single-parameter, read-only check with no output schema, the description covers purpose, result categories, and record format. It could state what an empty result means, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention funnel_id at all. The parameter name and tool title allow some inference, but the description adds no explicit meaning about what ID to pass or how it relates to the draft.

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 states a specific action ('check'), the resource ('funnel draft'), and a clear behavioral boundary ('does not publish anything'). It also explains the output categories (errors/warnings), making the tool's purpose distinct from sibling create/update/get/list operations.

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 implies when to use it: as the same pre-publication check but without side effects. The error/warning semantics further guide the agent on how to interpret results. It lacks explicit alternatives or 'use instead of' statements, but the context is clear enough.

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