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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, so the description adds value by disclosing that results are returned regardless of status and sorted newest-first. It also clarifies intended usage (tool chaining, not direct presentation). No contradiction with annotations.

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 repeats the same sentences in the intro and the 'When to use' section, making it longer than necessary. However, the use of headings does provide some structure, and each section serves a purpose.

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 rich annotations, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers prerequisites, return behavior, and usage context. It doesn't explain edge cases or errors, but these are not critical for this read-only tool.

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% with a description for sweepstakes_token. The description enhances this by explaining how to obtain the token (via fetch_sweepstakes), which adds practical meaning beyond the schema's basic UUID format note.

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 clearly states 'Get all scheduled drawings for a sweepstakes' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on 'scheduled drawings' and adds scope details (all statuses, sorted by creation date), making it unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call fetch_sweepstakes first to obtain the token, and advises using the output internally while presenting only human-readable info. This provides clear when-to-use context, though it doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions.

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