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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real value beyond that: the 3-day draft expiry and the instruction to surface the draft and client to the coach. It doesn't mention ordering, pagination, or volume, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the expiry caveat and the next-step tool. Every clause 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?

For a no-param, no-output-schema read tool with a readOnlyHint, the description covers what is returned (drafts and clients), a key behavioral constraint (expiry), and the follow-up action. Only minor operational details like result ordering are absent, which an agent can tolerate here.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. No param-level meaning is missing.

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 resource (AI-drafted workflow messages) and scope (waiting for the coach's approval), which is clearly distinct from the sibling review_workflow_draft that acts on them. An agent can immediately tell what this list returns.

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 explicitly routes the agent to the alternative: 'use review_workflow_draft to send or discard', and implicitly defines the when (checking pending approvals). The division of labor between listing and acting is unambiguous.

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