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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation and 'private draft' hints that access is gated (consistent with the required interview_token), but there is no statement of permissions, whether the draft is the caller's own, or what an unauthorized call returns.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness borders on under-specification for a tool with zero schema documentation.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description never says what the preview returns (full answer set? draft body? metadata?) or how it differs from interview_read. For a two-required-parameter tool with 0% parameter coverage, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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% for two required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: neither interview_id nor interview_token is mentioned. The word 'private' loosely foreshadows the token's purpose, but format, lookup behavior, and failure modes are absent.

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states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('private draft and all answers'), making it clear this retrieves unpublished interview content. It implicitly separates itself from interview_publish via 'before deciding to publish', though it never names the close sibling interview_read, so differentiation is only partial.

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?

'Review before deciding to publish' gives an implied workflow position: use this to inspect content prior to publishing. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not distinguish this from interview_read or interview_answer, leaving the agent to guess which read tool to pick.

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