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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: drafts are never published, draft_planned_for is only a planning date, and ids must be exact. These details help the agent avoid common mistakes with draft semantics. No contradiction with 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 extremely concise, consisting of three short sentences with no superfluous information. Every sentence provides value: What the tool does, the nature of drafts, and a critical usage caution. It is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 simple get-by-id tool, the description is largely complete. It covers the core action, clarifies draft semantics, and gives an important id-handling instruction. The lack of an output schema is acceptable because the return value is implied to be the draft object. Minor gaps include not explaining the 'query' parameter or potential error behavior, but these are not critical for a read operation with good annotations.

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 50% (query and workspace_id have descriptions, id and brand_id do not). The description adds crucial semantics for the 'id' parameter by specifying that it must be copied exactly from aidelly_list_drafts. However, it does not explain 'query' or 'brand_id', so it only partially compensates for the schema gaps.

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 clearly states 'Get a single post draft by id' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like aidelly_list_drafts, aidelly_create_draft, aidelly_update_draft, and aidelly_delete_draft. The additional note about drafts never being published further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 usage by stating ids must be copied exactly from aidelly_list_drafts, providing a clear how-to for obtaining the identifier. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like aidelly_get_post, nor does it mention exclusions or when not to use it. Guidance 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.