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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readonly, non-destructive write. The description adds key behavioral details: it drafts but does not send, and returns an existing draft for repeated identical misses, which is important idempotency information. It lacks details on permissions required or where the draft is stored.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary output (naming missing items), then the conditional draft behavior, then idempotency. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and idempotency. It could more explicitly describe the return shape (e.g., list of missing items plus draft object), but it is largely complete for an agent 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 coverage is 100% with caseId documented as CaseSchema.id. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the core action (identify missing pack documents and required numbers) and the side effect (draft a chase email without sending it). It distinguishes from a send tool by stating 'does not send it', but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like draft_memo_from_file, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied: use when chasing missing documents. It gives a condition for drafting (file has borrower email) but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention prerequisites like the case existing. No explicit when-not guidance is provided.

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