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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-openWorld), so the lower bar applies. The description still adds useful context the annotations don't carry: the drafts are unsent ('Nothing here has been sent') and the response includes full message text, which signals payload weight.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the scope and content, followed by the routing guidance. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and a single fully-documented parameter, the description supplies the remaining needed context: what is listed, that it is unsent, and that full text is returned. No output schema is needed given the description explains the content.

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?

Only one parameter (workspaceId) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter and its get_status hint. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('every outreach email drafted and waiting for a decision') and clarifies the scope with 'with the full text of each one. Nothing here has been sent.' This clearly separates it from siblings like list_sent and get_draft_reply without the agent opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names three siblings and the action conditions that route to them: edit_draft to change, discard_draft to drop, approve_batch to send. This is direct when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance rather than implied usage.

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