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

Annotations cover only the generic safety profile (destructive, not idempotent, open-world). The description adds genuinely new traits: zero cost, ~1 hour expiry, a one-pending-draft quota, and the requirement to authenticate separately against the city to prove ownership and lock the thing. These are behavioral facts an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the lifecycle constraint and the field whitelist are both stated compactly. The clipped, telegraphic style ('Then authenticate separately to the city') costs a little readability but wastes nothing.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, lifetime, quota, the follow-up auth step, and the field whitelist. It never says what a successful draft returns (e.g., a draft ID needed by later tools), which is the one 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents normalization, limits, and formats for all seven parameters. The description only repeats the field names and adds 'exactly these fields, nothing else,' which restates additionalProperties=false. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Draft a city-owned thing for the world aisle.' The jargon ('world aisle', 'city-owned thing') is idiosyncratic but the operation is distinguishable from siblings like cancel_world_draft and list_world. It could be sharper about what a 'draft' produces, but an agent can tell what the tool does.

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?

Gives real operating context: the draft is free, valid roughly one hour, one pending draft per seller, and before creating another you must 'activate it, cancel it, or wait for expiry' — which implicitly routes to cancel_world_draft. It stops short of naming alternatives for the listing/purchase side, but the preconditions are explicit.

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