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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful semantic nuance: drafts are returned and "a draft in this list is not permission to send it," which clarifies that visibility does not imply sendability. It stops short of describing result shape or pagination limits.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and free of filler. The warning sentence is the longest but earns its place by preventing a misuse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. However, with 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description should have explained kind and includeRetired; those gaps keep it at minimum viable rather than complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It only gestures at paging ("Page with offset") and says nothing about libraryId, the kind enum values (refund/date/feature/price/notice), or what includeRetired does, leaving three of four parameters effectively unexplained.

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 ("List saved wording") plus the scoping container ("in a library"), so the agent knows it enumerates stored wording. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_sendable_wording or list_outbound_libraries, leaving the boundary to inference.

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?

No explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no alternative tool is named. The note that drafts are included implies a use case (reviewing/approving), but the agent is left to infer that this is the browse step feeding approve_sendable_wording.

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