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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds context that this tool records the conversation and that 'nothing is funded and nothing can be spent' until business_start, which clarifies safety and semantics beyond the basic hints. It does not contradict annotations and gives useful behavioral context about the draft's lifecycle.

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 about 60 words, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence contributes to the workflow or safety guidance. There is no redundancy or filler. It is efficiently structured and easy to scan.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and simple annotations, the description covers the trigger, the workflow, and the non-destructive nature. It lacks explicit statements about return values or side effects, but those are minor for a draft creation tool. Overall, it gives an agent enough context to call it correctly.

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 goal, name, and brief adequately. The tool description mentions 'append to its brief' but does not add meaningful detail about the parameters themselves. Per the rubric, with full schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description does not go beyond that.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource ('Open a draft') and immediately states its place in the lifecycle: capturing a requirements conversation before the operator has answers. It distinguishes itself from business_start (which promotes the draft) and from business_log/business_brief by describing the workflow. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and sets it apart from its siblings.

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 description gives an explicit trigger ('the moment your operator says they want a business') and explains the follow-up actions (business_log, append to brief, business_start). It does not explicitly name alternative tools not to use, such as business_brief, but the workflow context makes the intended usage clear enough. A stronger contrast with other draft-related siblings would earn a 5, but this is solid.

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