product_render_draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that it returns the saved field set from the draft render surface, but says nothing about scope, freshness, or failure modes when no draft exists.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler; the parenthetical surface reference earns its place. Slightly denser than ideal but nothing is wasted.

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 no explanation, and the read-only nature is annotation-covered. However, with 0% parameter description coverage and a required category_id left undocumented, the definition is not quite complete enough for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only explains product_id (plaintext numeric draft id). The required category_id and the language/account_key parameters are left entirely undefined in both the schema and the description.

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: reads back a DRAFT product's saved fields, naming the underlying surface (schema.render.draft). That cleanly separates it from write siblings like product_publish and product_update, though it never explicitly contrasts with read siblings such as product_get_schema or product_group_get.

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?

"Useful to verify what a publish stored" implies the post-publish verification context, which is real usage guidance. But it never says when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for other product reads, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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