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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose that this is an irreversible outward send gated on explicit human consent and a legal terms agreement — exactly the behavior an agent must know. It stops short of stating whether the draft token is single-use, whether retries are safe, or what failure modes occur, which leaves residual ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the step sequencing and ending on the hard safety constraint. Every clause corresponds to a real precondition; nothing is padded.

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 explained, and the description covers sequencing, consent gating, and the no-autonomous-call rule. The gaps are the unmentioned copyright waiver parameter and post-send semantics such as token reuse, which for a legal-consent send action would be worth spelling out.

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 0%, and the description only implicitly covers two of the four parameters (the draft token and the user's confirmation/terms agreement). The required copyright-assignment and moral-rights-waiver consent is never mentioned in the prose, leaving an agent to discover that legal commitment only from the schema's const:true field.

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 ('send a draft from draft_error_report') and pins the sequence with 'Step 2 of 2', which makes it unambiguously distinct from its sibling draft_error_report. An agent can identify the action without reading 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?

Gives explicit preconditions (user has seen that exact draft and the terms, said to send it, agreed to the terms) and an explicit prohibition ('Never call it on your own'). The alternative, step 1, is named by reference to draft_error_report, so the routing decision is fully determined.

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