Get contract draft status / preview

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

With no annotations, the description provides essential behavioral details: it returns 'pending' while generating, and upon completion returns free preview, locked section titles, and a URL for unlocking. This covers the key states and outputs, though it omits error handling, timeouts, or authentication requirements. It is transparent enough for a simple status poll.

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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently packs prerequisite, behavioral states, and return values without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: the prerequisite (start_contract_draft), the status response, and the components of the full preview when complete. It could be improved by noting potential error conditions or status values beyond 'pending' and 'complete', but it is satisfactory for common use cases.

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% (the single parameter 'preview_id' is described). The description does not add new semantics beyond the schema's description; it merely restates that the ID comes from start_contract_draft. Therefore, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking the status of a contract draft started with a specific sibling tool (start_contract_draft). It distinguishes itself from siblings like analyze_contract and get_checkout_link by focusing on the draft generation process and what it returns (pending status, free preview, locked sections titles, unlock URL).

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?

The description explicitly mentions when to use this tool ('Check a contract draft started with start_contract_draft'), providing a clear prerequisite. It covers two states (during generation and when complete), which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which would improve the score.

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