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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is structured. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: emphasizes it never edits, enables sharing, or publishes, and explains pagination via nextCursor/hasMore and owner-only IDs/snippets. However, it doesn't detail rate limits or auth requirements, leaving a modest gap.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary use case, then flows into constraints and related tools. Some sentences like 'Matches all keywords/fragments in title and rich text, ignoring case' are slightly redundant with the schema but still earn their place for clarity.

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 tool has an output schema (so return values needn't be explained) and rich annotations, the description covers all an agent needs: purpose, when to use, alternatives, behavior, and pagination. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds only marginal value with 'Empty query lists recent drafts', which is already covered in the query parameter's schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('search_post_drafts' for 'finding an existing draft') and explicitly distinguishes from siblings search_posts and preview_post. An agent can identify the tool's function without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to search first ('when draftId is unknown'), what not to do ('do not ask for a link'), and names alternative tools show_post_card and preview_post with their distinct purposes. Complete routing guidance.

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