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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'It spends nothing' — resolving the non-obvious question of whether checking the plan consumes the monthly draft allowance. It also discloses the return value ('a confirmation token'), which matters because no output schema exists.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the workflow position and the no-cost guarantee, then the user-consent instruction. No filler; each sentence carries a distinct operational fact.

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 precursor tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow position, side-effect profile, the return artifact (token), and the required human-in-the-loop step. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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%, with the id parameter documented including examples of where it comes from and the language enum listing defaults. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the full burden.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Step one of creating an application draft for a call') and immediately distinguishes its role from create_draft by positioning itself as the preliminary step. An agent can tell what this does and where it sits in the workflow 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?

Explicitly states the required sequencing: call this first, then 'call create_draft only after they agree.' It also prescribes the user-facing disclosure ('Tell the user that one draft will be used from the monthly allowance'), removing any inference about the confirmation gate.

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