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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it returns null when no proposal is pending, describes the contents of the result (findings with evidence, current vs proposed text, before/after replays), and emphasizes that no changes are applied until the accept sibling is invoked. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds distinct information: what is returned, what a checkup is, what the result contains, and the side-effect boundary. No filler or redundancy.

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 carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does: null when none pending, named findings with evidence, current vs proposed text, and before/after replays. The single workspaceId parameter is covered by schema, and annotations cover safety, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this 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?

There is only one optional parameter, and the schema already documents its default behavior ('Defaults to the API key's workspace'). Schema description coverage is 100%, so this is the baseline case where the description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and it doesn't.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the workspace's open draft checkup proposal, or null when none is pending.' It further defines what a checkup is and distinguishes the read-only nature from accept by noting 'Nothing is applied until campaignstack_accept_draft_checkup.' This is unambiguous and sets it apart from sibling accept/reject/run tools.

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?

Description makes it clear this is the retrieval action for a pending proposal and explicitly warns that nothing is applied until the accept sibling is called. It does not explicitly name run_draft_checkup as the action that generates a proposal, so the when-to-use guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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