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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful facts beyond that: the offer must be a draft, and the supplied list is a complete ordering rather than a partial patch — implying replace-wholesale semantics. It still says nothing about whether omission of a document drops it, or about revision-conflict behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the operative constraint ('list every document once') is placed where an agent will read it. It is efficient, though the brevity comes partly from under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 five-parameter mutation with no output schema and zero schema documentation, the description leaves too much unsaid: no return/confirmation behavior, no concurrency semantics for expected_draft_revision, and no indication of what happens on partial lists. An agent could invoke it but would be guessing on several required fields.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It only weakly implies that document_ids carries an ordered list; the required idempotency_key, offer_id, request_id, and expected_draft_revision parameters are entirely unexplained in either place.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

'List every document once' communicates a precondition (the input must be a complete permutation of the offer's documents), which is genuine usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over _documents_edit, no note about draft-only applicability being a hard requirement, and no mention of the expected_draft_revision concurrency guard.

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