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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the cost profile (FREE) and the shape of the return content (all patterns, each with a fix hint), and a zero-parameter list call is inherently read-only. It does not state side effects, permissions, or output structure beyond that, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

A single sentence with the cost qualifier front-loaded, no filler, and every clause carrying information the agent can use before deciding to call it.

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 parameterless, annotation-free read tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough: what it returns and at what cost. Adding a note on the return format or how it relates to the two checkers would close the remaining 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies no input is needed by framing the tool as a wholesale catalog listing.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: list every AI-writing pattern DraftCheck detects, plus a fix hint per pattern. That is clearly a pattern-catalog reference tool, distinguishable in kind from the sibling slop_check/slop_check_long checkers, though the description never explicitly names those siblings to make the distinction airtight.

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 leading "FREE." hints that this is a no-cost lookup and implies you'd call it to learn the catalog rather than to analyze text, which is useful. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus slop_check or slop_check_long, so the routing is left to inference.

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