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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'List' verb is consistent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying UTC instants, tenant timezone inclusion, and rejection filtering—details beyond the structured 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core action and filtering are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds necessary time-format info. Every sentence 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 no output schema, the description covers what is returned (drafts with scheduled times) and key output characteristics (UTC, timezone display). It does not mention pagination or return field structure, but for a simple read-only list tool this is a minor gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only indirectly references output behavior (timezone) rather than explaining the handle or context parameters.

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 a clear resource ('every draft with a scheduled publish time'), includes ordering ('soonest first') and an exclusion ('excluding rejected ones'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_drafts (all drafts) and edit_schedule (a mutation).

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 defines the exact scope of the tool ('drafts with scheduled publish time') and the exclusion criterion, giving an agent clear context on when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling names and scope imply the distinction from list_drafts.

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