List engine drafts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by noting the active-org scope, the side-effect-free capability (though redundant with annotations), and the postId behavior for POSTED drafts, which enriches the agent's understanding beyond structured fields.

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?

The description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then filters, a special case, and a capability note. Every sentence adds substantive value with zero wasted words.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers scope, filters, and the notable return-field behavior (postId). It does not enumerate all possible return fields, but given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations, this is sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by naming both parameters ('status' with allowed values and 'brand' as a filter), but it does not specify the brand parameter's format or any default behaviors. This meets the minimum compensation threshold but lacks depth, especially since the status enum is already in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'List engine-submitted drafts for the active org.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_posts (posts vs. drafts) and list_approvals (approvals vs. drafts), while also noting the active-org scoping.

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?

It states the optional filters ('Optional status... and brand filters') and provides a follow-up path ('POSTED drafts carry a postId you can follow with get_post'), giving clear context on when the tool is used. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the resource name and sibling context make exclusions apparent.

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