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

Adds meaningful context beyond annotations: empty query behavior, case-insensitive and order-independent matching, owner-only results, newest-first ordering, and pagination semantics (continue with nextCursor if hasMore, even on an empty page). It also clarifies what the tool does NOT do ('Never edits, enables sharing or publishes'), which is behaviorally useful, though annotations already cover the read-only/non-destructive profile.

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?

Dense, front-loaded, and every sentence carries distinct information: trigger, precondition, matching semantics, empty-query behavior, return shape, pagination, and next tool. No repetition of schema defaults or filler.

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?

Complete for a read-only search tool with an output schema: the description covers when to use it, matching behavior, empty-query fallback, owner-only scope, ordering, pagination, and the follow-up action. Output schema carries return details, so the description need not repeat them.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds some beyond-schema semantics: empty query lists recent drafts (matching query default), cursor continuation logic, and match semantics ('matches all keywords or word fragments in any order, case-insensitively, in title and full rich text') that go beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 (search/find) and resource (drafts) with scope (title and full rich text, keyword fragments, any order). It distinguishes itself from search_posts by specifying drafts only and from update_post_draft/preview_post by positioning itself as the lookup step before those actions.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when finding an existing draft by topic, title or content before previewing or editing it'), explicit precondition ('Search first when draftId is unknown; do not ask for a link'), and explicit next steps ('use preview_post for the selected draft'). Alternatives and exclusions are plainly stated.

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