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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behavioral traits: the tool excludes scheduled posts and incurs no quota cost. This goes beyond a simple read operation, providing account-relevant context. However, it doesn't mention return format or ordering, leaving some gaps.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and adds essential differentiators in a compact parenthetical. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, single resource), the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and cost characteristics. The sibling context further clarifies its role among related tools.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the input space. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is appropriate since there is nothing to clarify.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with resource 'saved drafts' and explicitly differentiates from scheduled posts and quota implications. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_scheduled_posts and get_posting_quota.

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 phrase 'not scheduled, cost no quota' provides clear context on when to use this tool—when you want drafts rather than scheduled posts and when quota cost is a concern. It implies alternatives (e.g., list_scheduled_posts) but does not explicitly name them, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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