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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'Cannot spend money' and scoping the operation to the user's portfolio. It also discloses the kind of data returned, which is useful since no output schema exists.

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, purposeful sentences: what the tool does, safety behavior, and when to call it. There is no filler or repetition beyond a useful restatement of the read-only guarantee in domain terms ('Cannot spend money').

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description is complete: it states scope, output fields, safety profile, and recommended invocation timing. No output schema exists, but the description names the important return fields, so an agent can invoke and interpret the result 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter burden to carry. The empty input schema fully covers the parameter surface, and the description adds no misleading or unnecessary parameter detail.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('drafts in the user's Scopeweb portfolio'), and the included fields (status, preview URLs, timestamps). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_draft (single item) and list_domains (different resource).

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 explicit usage context: 'Call this at the start of a session to see existing work.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using get_draft for a single draft, but the guidance is clear enough for selection.

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