Read checked submission plans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: an API key is required, and the read is framed as an owner review gate preceding a paid action. It stops short of describing error behavior or how stale a preflight may be.

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 sentences with no filler, and the auth requirement is front-loaded. But the second sentence is a dense run-on that buries the core operation, so the structure prioritizes the review ritual over stating what the tool actually does.

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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the returned content (targets, blockers, proposed public payload). But for a single-parameter tool it omits the parameter's meaning and the relationship to `run_preflight`, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% for the single required `preflight_id` parameter, so the description must carry the burden — and it never mentions the parameter, its UUID format, or where the ID originates (presumably from `run_preflight`). The self-evident name is the only guide, leaving a real gap in how to invoke the tool.

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 sentence 'Review every target, blocker and proposed public payload' communicates the content being inspected but never states the actual operation — retrieving a stored preflight record by its ID. It also fails to differentiate from the sibling `run_preflight`, which the agent could easily confuse with this read tool. Purpose is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is an implicit sequencing cue: review 'before authorizing a paid launch', which tells the agent where this sits relative to authorization. However, it never says when to use `get_preflight` versus `run_preflight`, nor any prerequisite such as 'call run_preflight first to obtain the preflight_id'.

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