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

Annotations declare a non-read, idempotent, non-destructive operation; the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that nothing is posted and that repeat calls return existing drafts rather than producing new ones. It stops short of saying whether drafts persist server-side or expire, which is the one remaining ambiguity an agent might care about.

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 what the tool does, followed by the usage constraint. Nothing is redundant with the title or the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by indicating the return is a set of drafts the agent should surface to the user. It leaves the shape of the drafts (count, fields) unspecified, which is a minor gap for a one-parameter tool.

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% with a single parameter whose description already points to list_cues. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Drafts replies to a cue") plus a second mode ("returns the drafts it already has"), so the agent knows exactly what happens. It does not contrast itself with sibling reads like get_cue or skip_cue, so sibling differentiation is partial rather than explicit.

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 clear procedural context: show drafts, let the user edit and post, then call mark_replied. That names the follow-up sibling and the ordering, but it never states when this tool should be skipped (e.g., versus skip_cue) or any preconditions.

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