Preview Newsletter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by listing the specific outputs (email HTML, archive HTML, text, warnings, URL breakdown), providing context beyond what annotations convey.

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?

The description is a single sentence (17 words) that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or unnecessary 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?

With a simple single-parameter input schema and an existing output schema, the description adequately lists the output components. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand what the tool does and its role among 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 100% and the only parameter 'id' is described in the schema as 'Newsletter ID.' The tool description does not add additional meaning or format details beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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 specific verb 'Render' and clearly states the resource 'newsletter draft' and the multiple output formats (sanitized email HTML, archive HTML, text, warnings, counted URL breakdown). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_newsletter_preflight or send_newsletter_test.

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 previewing drafts but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like run_newsletter_preflight or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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