Read a listing draft

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Returns' and clarifies the operational scope by listing the draft components returned. This adds context beyond the annotation, though it doesn't address error behaviors or prerequisites.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns') and concisely enumerates the return contents without extraneous information.

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-getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it identifies the target resource and the full set of information contained in the draft. It doesn't cover error cases, but that's typical for simple getters.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter with a description ('Draft id returned by prepare_listing'), so the description does not need to elaborate. It adds no direct parameter detail, but with full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the verb 'Returns' and clearly specifies the resource 'a stored draft in full' with enumerated components (fields, photos, comparables, price estimate, validation state, history). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_drafts (list vs single) and update_listing_draft (update).

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?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving a single draft by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_drafts or get_item, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance. However, the context is straightforward for a simple getter.

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