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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those: it never sends messages, fails closed on auto-send/apply, and produces a human-reviewed draft. This is useful safety-relevant context for an AI agent.

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 efficient sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the safety behavior is stated immediately after, giving the agent the most decision-relevant information first.

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 the output schema and annotations, the description covers the safety profile and high-level purpose. But the domain terms 'safe pains' and 'voice evidence' are undefined, the relationship to the sibling talent_scout_draft_manual_note is unclear, and several parameters remain semantically unexplained, so the overall picture is only minimally sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It gives some parameter-relevant meaning: 'safe pains' describes the pains input, 'voice evidence' maps to voice_samples/voice_profile, and 'fails closed on auto-send/apply' clarifies the send/apply booleans. However, required target_name and other parameters like tenant_id and artifact_type receive no semantic guidance.

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 names a specific verb ('Draft') and resource ('human-reviewed manual note'), and says input comes from 'safe pains and voice evidence'. It clearly indicates this is a drafting, not sending, tool, which helps distinguish it from send/apply siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named talent_scout_draft_manual_note.

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 implies when to use it: when drafting a human-reviewed note from pain and voice evidence. The statement that it 'never sends messages and fails closed on auto-send/apply requests' implies it should not be used for sending, but it does not name alternatives or give explicit when/when-not criteria.

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