get_document_draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the ID namespace differs from local approval request IDs — but says nothing about what the returned draft looks like or Morning's access requirements.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose comes first and the ID clarification follows. It is efficient, though the second sentence assumes the reader already knows what an approval request ID is.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool whose annotations carry the safety profile and with no output schema to explain, the description covers purpose and the main ambiguity (ID type). The only residual gap is that it doesn't hint at what the draft read returns.

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% and the single id parameter is only constrained by a UUID regex. The description partially compensates by clarifying that the ID refers to a Morning document draft rather than a local approval request ID, which meaningfully narrows what value to pass, though it gives no format example beyond the schema pattern.

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?

Names a specific verb (Read) and resource (editable document draft saved in Morning), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_document and preview_document_draft. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, but the resource plus source qualifier is clear.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g. preview_document_draft, search_document_drafts). The only routing hint is that the ID differs from a local approval request ID, which implies context but does not tell the agent when to pick this tool.

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