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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false annotations, the description discloses the 4-hour expiry window, the ownership scoping ('only your own drafts are ever returned'), and the meaning of an empty result. These are non-obvious behavioural traits an agent cannot infer from the annotations or schema.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the list behaviour and return contents before the optional single-draft mode. Every sentence carries either scope, return shape, or result semantics; 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and their time semantics. With one optional parameter and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke it and interpret the response 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: passing draftId switches from list mode to single-item mode, and a missing/empty result signals the draft is published, abandoned, expired, or foreign. That is more than the schema's 'omit to list all' gloss.

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 a specific verb ('List') plus resource ('your waiting drafts from engramic_record_draft') and enumerates what each entry contains (draftId, payload, created/expiry times). It is clearly distinguishable from the write-side siblings engramic_record_draft, engramic_record_publish and engramic_record_abandon.

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?

It states both usage modes explicitly: omit draftId to list, or pass draftId to read one draft. It also explains the empty-list outcome (published, abandoned, expired, or not yours), which tells the agent how to interpret a negative result. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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