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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and external-side-effect profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the exact state transition (draft → sent_waiting_for_initial_review) and the required starting state. It stops short of describing notification/email behavior or reversibility.

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 compact sentences with the state transition front-loaded and the precondition second; every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 send action with no output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent needs: the required source state and the resulting state. There is no meaningful gap left unstated that would cause a wrong invocation.

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?

There is a single parameter whose meaning ('UUID of the draft agreement to send') is already documented inside the nested pathParams.id schema. The description adds no extra syntax or format guidance, so it neither compensates for nor improves on the schema; a baseline 3 is appropriate for a one-param tool with a self-describing field.

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 states a specific verb (Send), resource (draft agreement), and target (the recipient), plus the resulting state transition. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as resend-agreement-email or create-agreement without opening their schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition — 'Agreement must be in draft status' — which tells the agent when the call is valid. It does not, however, name the alternative to use once the agreement is already sent (e.g. resend-agreement-email), so the when-not guidance is only partial.

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