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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it clarifies the export does not publish and issues a prompt-injection warning that public titles/descriptions/names/history are untrusted data, which is important behavioral guidance for handling returned content.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the exclusion and security note. Every element earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-param export tool the description supplies purpose, a non-publish clarification, and a security caveat, leaving only minor gaps around how to obtain a valid draftRef.

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 0%, so the single parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description only notes that draftRef is 'private' and relates to a draft, adding little about format or provenance (the schema's uri format and 300-char limit go unexplained). Baseline credit for a one-parameter tool, but it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Export exact canonical content and member designs from a private draftRef') and adds scope ('for retention beyond expiry'). Explicitly distinguishes itself from the publish siblings with 'This does not publish', though it leaves some overlap with get_design/get_plan unaddressed.

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?

'For retention beyond expiry' gives a clear use condition, and 'This does not publish' signals when this is the wrong tool by ruling out the publish siblings. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives, so the agent must infer that ugt_publish_design is the publishing route.

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