read_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden well, explicitly stating 'Nothing is changed or sent — this is a read, so it needs no approval.' It also discloses the ``usable`` flag semantics — a false value means a field is hidden/disabled and must be revealed first, which is non-obvious behavior beyond the schema. It omits failure modes (e.g., what happens when the form is already public).

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the rest earns its place by explaining why the multi-source gather matters. There is mild redundancy between 'for a human to approve' and 'so the approval request can carry the actual content', but the prose stays readable and purposeful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is appropriately omitted, and the description still usefully previews what is gathered (fields, rich-text body, attachment slots, draft/public status). The only real hole is the unexplained max_chars parameter, plus no note on error cases when the item is not a draft.

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% and the single parameter max_chars is never mentioned in the description. The name hints at a character cap, but truncation behavior — whether content is cut, elided, or errors — is entirely undocumented, so the description does not 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+resource (collect what a form is about to publish) and immediately scopes it for human approval. It explicitly distinguishes narrow-scope siblings by noting the rich-text body is 'a separate document ``read_page`` never shows', so an agent can tell it apart from read_page without inspecting either 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 clear context: gather the full item so an approval request carries actual content, not a description. It names read_page as an inadequate alternative for the rich-text body, but does not address other plausible siblings such as read_form or save_draft, so the when-to-use routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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