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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds pagination behavior, but it references a 'next_offset' field that does not exist in the schema (the only parameter is 'offset'), leaving the actual return/pagination contract ambiguous.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the listing purpose comes first. Slightly undermined by the ambiguous second sentence, but structurally efficient.

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 one param and no output schema, the description should at least clarify how 'offset' works and what a result contains. Instead it introduces a nonexistent field name and gives no usage context, leaving the agent under-informed.

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% and the sole 'offset' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description does not explain offset semantics and instead names a different field ('next_offset'), so the parameter's meaning is never clarified.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('main and alternative drafts'), and the main/alternative distinction adds a little specificity. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like read_agreement or read_accord, but the listing vs. reading distinction is reasonably apparent.

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?

The second sentence describes pagination mechanics ('Follow next_offset'), not when to choose this tool over read_agreement, read_agreement_history, or the other agreement siblings. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are given.

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