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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description goes beyond them by disclosing the data source (the /skapa-mcp page the user has open), the fallback behavior when the page is closed (last known state with live=false plus a link to open), and the snapshot contents. It does not discuss latency or staleness windows beyond the live flag, which is minor given the read-only profile.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, then the live/fallback caveat, then the return shape. Dense but every section earns its place, including the return enumeration that substitutes for a missing output schema; slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields (live, url, step 1-7, step_name, next_enabled, prompts, messages) and by explaining the live=false fallback. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this read tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single draft_id is fully documented in the schema (source list_drafts, must belong to the connected account). The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (shows where a draft stands in the web guide) and enumerates the exact facets returned: current step, whether Nästa is clickable, open prompts/dialogs, and blocking error messages. It also names the sibling relation (prompts are answered with answer_prompt), so an agent can distinguish it from read_draft or next_step without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: before doing anything in a draft and after every action when unsure of the state. It also routes the prompt sub-case to answer_prompt, so both the trigger and the handoff alternative are named.

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