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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's contribution is the definition of 'draft' (started, unfinished), which is genuinely useful context, but 'Returns: The drafts' is circular and no ordering, pagination, or per-user scoping behavior is disclosed.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence 'Returns: The drafts.' restates the tool name and earns no place. The remaining sentence is compressed to the point of being terse rather than informative.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, adequate is a fair bar and the description roughly meets it. It stops short of telling an agent that results are confined to the required campaign or what a draft record contains, which are the remaining questions an agent would have.

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?

The single 'campaign' parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including slug-or-id acceptance, so the schema carries parameter semantics entirely. The description adds nothing about the parameter, notably omitting that the listing is scoped to one campaign, which is the one non-obvious semantic and it is missing here.

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 pairs an implicit list verb with a precise resource definition: characters started in the creator and not finished. That definitional gloss separates it in spirit from list_characters and get_character_draft, though neither sibling is named, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than be told it.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. With four closely related siblings in the toolset (get_character_draft, start_character_draft, finish_character_draft, update_character_draft, list_characters), the description never says to call this one to enumerate drafts before resuming or finishing a specific one.

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