get_draft_status

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (read-only, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: it explains that `held` is a rolling-24h park that resumes automatically, that `blocked` is never auto-retried, and that `sendError` only appears on failed/cancelled. That lifecycle detail materially changes how an agent reacts to each status.

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?

Purpose and the send_imessage sequencing are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information. The status enumeration is dense and parenthetical-heavy, which is efficient but costs some scannability.

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 carries the full return-value burden and does so by naming every field (`status`, `hold`, `sent`, `sendError`, `sentMessage`) and its conditions. Nothing needed to interpret a response is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, with the schema already stating it is the draft id returned from send_imessage. The description adds no format, prefix, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Read a single draft" is a precise verb+resource, and the description immediately scopes it against the write path by naming send_imessage and its post-send use. An agent can distinguish this from list_drafts or cancel_pending_draft without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ("Use this after send_imessage to confirm the message was delivered") and clarifies that a `held` status is not a failure, which prevents a wrong follow-up action. It stops short of naming alternatives such as list_drafts for bulk polling, so no explicit when-not routing.

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