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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description's job is domain behavior — and it delivers the important lifecycle facts: a paid sheet waits 30 days then is deleted, and in-progress sheets expose status 'drawing'. It stops short of describing the full set of possible statuses or the shape of each entry.

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 sentences carry useful density, but the first is grammatically broken ('but not kept yet Newest first'), fusing the scope clause and the ordering clause. The lifecycle explanation lands well, yet the reader has to re-parse the opening to extract the filter conditions.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must convey what comes back: it does so by naming the two inclusion states, the 'drawing' status field, and sort order. The deletion-after-30-days rule is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs before recommending keep_character. Only the exact response fields remain unspecified.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter text is needed or missing.

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 identifies the resource (character sheets) and the specific subset returned: those being drawn or drawn-and-paid-for-but-not-kept, with newest-first ordering. It implicitly contrasts with sibling list_characters (kept sheets) without naming it explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 names keep_character as the action that resolves a waiting sheet and explains the 30-day expiry, which implies when to call this tool (to find sheets needing a keep/discard decision). It never states when NOT to use it or points to list_characters / get_character_request as alternatives.

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