list_drafts

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that results include subject and recipients, but says nothing about read-only nature, ordering, truncation, or how max_results caps the listing — significant gaps for a paginated list operation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return fields, with no filler. The brevity is close to the limit of usefulness rather than wasteful.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and one parameter but omits the result-limit behavior and any indication of what a draft entry looks like. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would notice when calling it.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that `account` accepts an email or alias, which is genuinely useful, but `max_results` (default 10) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters unexplained beyond their titles.

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 ("List drafts") and even previews the returned fields (subject and recipients), so an agent can distinguish it from mutation siblings like create_draft or send_draft. It does not explicitly differentiate it from search_emails or get_thread, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the nearby alternatives such as search_emails for filtered retrieval. The listing intent is implied by the name, but routing between siblings is left entirely to inference.

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