get_draft_recommendations

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavior: latest is null under specific stale/paused/no-result conditions, trial counters have different scopes, and the tool does not fetch observations or append calculation evidence. This gives the agent a precise model of the tool's side effects and limitations.

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?

Every sentence contributes useful information: what it reads, what it returns, null semantics, counter scoping, alternatives, and exclusions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains dense without becoming bloated.

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?

The description is complete for an agent to decide when and how to call this parameterless read tool. It explains stale results, counter semantics, alternatives, and explicitly states what it does not do; the output schema covers the return shape.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The schema coverage is 100% and the parameterless nature is fully visible; no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read cached results and status from the local draft monitor.' It also explicitly says it does not run a simulation, distinguishing it from simulation-producing tools like start_draft_monitor and recommend_draft.

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?

It clearly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives: use start_draft_monitor to produce these cached results, or recommend_draft for an independent single batch. This is explicit routing guidance, not just implied context.

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