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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that a draft itself changes nothing, that the change only materializes on the mayor's one-tap confirmation, that the effect is attributed to the mayor's account under the same approval policy, and that a Bearer deputy token is required. That is exactly the deferred-effect and auth context the hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) cannot express.

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?

Three tight clauses: the action and its effect, the deferred-confirmation model, then the auth prerequisite. No filler, and the most important framing ('a draft changes nothing') lands before the auth note.

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 four required params, no output schema, and only partial schema docs, the description covers the risky parts (no immediate side effect, token requirement, valid decision pairings). It leaves open what a successful draft returns and what happens to the item while pending, which an agent would want to know.

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 coverage is only 25% (only 'note' is documented), and the description compensates by explaining the coupling between item_kind and decision — accept/decline for suggestions, approve/remove for visit reports — which the enums alone do not convey. It adds nothing about item_id (where to obtain a valid id), leaving one gap.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('drafts a decision'), scopes it to a Deputy acting on the mayor's behalf, and enumerates the two supported item kinds with their allowed decisions. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like deputy_note and deputy_queue.

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 description implies applicability through 'for a suggestion' and 'for a held visit report', which tells the agent which items qualify. It never states when not to use it or names an alternative (e.g., deputy_queue to find held items), so routing guidance stops at implied scope.

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