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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, closed-world), so the description's added value is the ordering guarantee ('newest first') and the live-state field ('whether one is being drawn now'), both genuinely useful. It omits any mention of result capping or pagination, which matters because the limit maxes at 30.

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, zero filler: the usage condition comes first, the result shape second. Every clause carries information not present elsewhere.

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-value detail is optional, yet the description usefully summarizes it. The main gap is that it never signals that the list is capped (default 10, max 30), leaving the agent unaware it may need to widen the limit for a complete inventory.

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% for the single 'limit' parameter, and the description never mentions a limit, page size, or truncation behavior. With the lowest coverage tier, the description is expected to compensate, and here it provides nothing beyond the schema's type/default/max.

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?

Specific verb ('Lists') plus resource ('drawings in the Plan Chat CAD studio') with an explicit ownership scope ('their own'). The scope word 'own' alone distinguishes it from show_community_cad_drawings, and the stated return fields (id, title, version count, in-progress flag) further pin down what the agent gets back.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: 'Use this when the user asks about their own drawings.' The ownership qualifier implicitly excludes the community listing and single-drawing siblings, but it never names get_cad_drawing or show_community_cad_drawings as alternatives, so routing for a single drawing or a community browse is left to inference.

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