read_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully specifies the returned payload (headers, plain-text body, attachment list, implying no HTML body), but says nothing about behavior on an unknown draft_id, permission/scope requirements, or whether the draft state is altered.

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 the identifier first and the return contents after the colon. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract by enumerating the returned fields. Only the error/empty case and permission context are unaddressed, which are minor gaps for a simple read.

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 100%, and the schema already explains the only parameter's provenance ('Draft ID from list_drafts or create_draft'). The description merely restates 'by draft_id', adding no extra syntax or format meaning, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one Gmail draft') and goes further by listing exactly what is returned (headers, plain-text body, attachment list). This clearly distinguishes it from list_drafts and from read_email/read_thread.

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 'by draft_id' phrasing and the schema hint ('from list_drafts or create_draft') imply the tool is used after enumerating or creating a draft, but the description never states when to prefer this over list_drafts or update_draft. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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