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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is pre-covered. The description still earns credit for "Does not spend", a cost/credit signal annotations never carry, and for "waiting" implying only pending drafts are returned. It stops short of saying anything about response shape, ordering or volume, so the addition is real but thin.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, each carrying a distinct payload: what it lists, that it costs nothing, and which siblings own the adjacent cases. No repetition of the title and no filler.

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 two-parameter read-only lister with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost and sibling routing, which is most of what an agent needs. Only the shape of the returned draft list (fields, counts, pagination) is left unstated.

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 100% and both parameters (brand_id pointing at list_brands, optional user_goal) are already documented in schema. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 plus resource with scope: "List waiting social-copy drafts for a brand (Content tab)". It explicitly carves itself away from two neighbouring tools ('quote_content_pack' and 'plan_visual'), so an agent can place it in the catalogue without opening any schema.

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 two explicit routing rules: use quote_content_pack to price a new set, and ads/paid-media copy lives in plan_visual rather than here. Those are real when-to-use-elsewhere conditions, not just hints, so the agent knows both what this covers and what it does not.

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