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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: 'nothing is saved or sent' and it 'Returns a proposal and the X1 review destination,' clarifying the dry-run nature and the follow-on step.

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 tightly scoped sentences that front-load the action and the no-side-effect guarantee. No filler, though the category constraint sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema's category description.

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 an output schema present and 100% schema description coverage, the description needn't detail return values, yet it still signals the proposal-and-review-destination output and the 'nothing saved/sent' behavior. Complete enough to call the tool correctly; only explicit sibling routing is absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including enums, deadlines, and clientId is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the category constraint and examples the schema also provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate for this schema-driven tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Prepare a draft request for a missing financial or household document,' with concrete examples (K-1, statement, trust, property record). This distinguishes it from the sibling list_document_requests, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. Purpose is clear without opening the 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 implies the usage context ('for a missing ... document') and adds the constraint that only supported categories on this connection can be requested. However, it never states when to use this draft tool versus siblings like list_document_requests or other draft_* tools, leaving routing to inference.

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