Read My Poster

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: what a ready response contains (previewUrl, document), that it is free ('does not charge'), that it has no task side effects, and that non-owned IDs are refused by the API.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then return content, then side-effect scope. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the payload fields returned when the poster is ready, and it discloses the ownership precondition and absence of side effects. Minor gap: it does not describe non-ready/error states beyond the ownership refusal.

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% for the single required uuid parameter, so the description must carry the meaning. It does add semantics: the id must reference a poster the caller owns, and non-owned IDs are rejected by the API — a constraint not present in the schema.

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 ('Read an existing owned poster and its current state') and scopes it to owned posters. The negations ('Does not advance a task, create images or charge') implicitly separate it from the sibling tools advance_poster and create_poster, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 implied rather than stated: the negation clause tells the agent this is not the mutating/creating path, and 'Non-owned IDs remain refused' sets a precondition. But there is no explicit 'use this when X, use quote_poster/create_poster when Y' routing guidance.

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