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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely a restatement. 'Cannot spend money' is a genuine addition beyond annotations and is meaningful given siblings like set_budget and quote_domain, but the description adds little else about behavior or scope of results.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ending on the usage cue. Minor redundancy: 'Read-only' duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation, so one clause does not fully earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description correctly avoids that burden. For a zero-parameter read tool with rich annotations, purpose, safety, and usage are all covered; only sibling differentiation is missing.

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 the baseline is 4. The description enumerates the returned fields, which helps set expectations even though it adds nothing parameter-related (there is nothing to add).

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 ('List all drafts in the user's Scopeweb portfolio') plus the returned fields (status, preview URLs, timestamps). The 'all drafts' scope implicitly separates it from get_draft, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of the top band.

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?

'Call this at the start of a session to see existing work' gives a clear triggering condition. It does not mention when to prefer get_draft or how to narrow results (no filtering params exist), so no explicit alternatives are offered.

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