get_draft

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe, non-destructive read, and the description merely restates 'Read' without adding context such as behavior on a missing draft ID, account resolution, or pagination. With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering returns, the description contributes virtually nothing behavioral.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the lookup key is stated up front and every word earns its place.

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?

Annotations cover safety and an output schema covers return values, so the remaining burden is usage routing and the undocumented draftId. Those gaps leave it minimally adequate but not complete for an agent choosing among many get_*/list_* siblings.

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 50%: accountId is documented in-schema but draftId is not, and the description only partially compensates by stating the draft is identified 'by its draft ID'. It adds no format, sourcing, or constraint detail (e.g., length or where the ID comes from) beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb (Read) and resource (draft), plus the lookup key (draft ID), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_email or get_thread, which also read single entities by ID.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as get_email, get_thread, or the list_* tools, and no mention of prerequisites like the draft needing to exist or be in a connected account. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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