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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is set. The description still adds useful behavioral context beyond them: a 100-item page limit with cursor paging, plus the explicit "free" and "no generation, publication or charge" guarantees, which is more than the annotations alone convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the scope and followed by the pagination and cost guarantees. Tight and free of filler, though the final safety clause partly echoes what the annotations already state.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers scope, page size, paging mechanism and cost/side-effect profile. It stops short of describing result ordering or link structure, but that is a minor gap.

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 0% and the single cursor parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description's "cursor paging" gesture does explain the parameter's purpose, but gives no format, ordering, or how to obtain the next cursor. With one param and no schema text, this is only partially compensating.

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 (Discover/list) and resource (work drafts) and enumerates the concrete draft types: voice, CreateAd, bulk-photo. An agent can tell this is a listing tool, though it does not name the sibling tools (soclo_work_drafts_read/edit, soclo_posts_drafts) to differentiate 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?

"Discover" implies a list/browse use case, and "on the connected account" narrows scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the edit/read siblings, and no guidance on when this is preferable to other draft-listing tools.

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