get_draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, fully covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact fields returned (recipient, subject, body, status), but this is more about return structure than behavioral traits. No contradiction.

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 with zero wasted words. First sentence delivers purpose and return content. Second sentence provides usage context and rationale. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 1 parameter (fully documented), no output schema, but the description lists return fields. Combined with sibling tools and annotations, this provides complete context for a simple read operation. The agent knows what to expect and when to invoke it.

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 100% with the 'id' parameter already described as 'Id of the draft to read, from create_draft or list_drafts.' The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Read', the resource 'one draft in full by its id', and explicitly lists the fields returned (recipient, subject, body text, current status). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_drafts' which returns a summary list, and 'update_draft' which modifies.

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 tells when to use this tool: 'when you need the content of a specific draft', and provides concrete examples: 'to review what is queued for approval after list_drafts, or before editing it with update_draft'. This also implies alternatives (list_drafts, update_draft), giving excellent guidance.

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