preview_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; 'Show' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation and it usefully discloses that validation problems are returned. However, it does not state that the draft is unmodified, whether any permissions are required, or whether the preview reflects the saved or unsaved state — relevant for a tool whose siblings include push_draft and publish_draft.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, with the outcome ('exactly as it would be sent to finn.no') and the secondary value ('plus blocking problems') both front-loaded. Nothing restates the name or title.

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 values need not be explained, and the description still calls out the two things an agent cares about from that output. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only the missing read-only assurance and draft_id meaning keep it short of complete.

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% and the single required parameter draft_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The name is largely self-explanatory for a drafts-oriented tool, and sibling list_drafts/create_draft establish the ID concept, so the shortfall is not severe, but the description adds no meaning beyond the property name.

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 ('Show') and resource ('a draft') plus what is produced: the exact payload sent to finn.no and any blocking problems. That contrasts naturally with publish_draft and push_draft, though it never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied — 'blocking problems' hints it is a pre-publish check, but the description never says when to call it versus publish_draft or push_draft, nor what to do with the blocking problems it surfaces. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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