ofw_list_drafts

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

Despite readOnlyHint=false, the description does not mention any mutation, but it transparently explains caching behavior, the UNVERIFIED_EMPTY refusal scenario, and that autoRefresh may cost OFW requests. This adds important behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 structured logically: purpose, result format, special case (UNVERIFIED_EMPTY), and reminder for live queries. It is slightly verbose but each sentence serves a purpose, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains the result structure (complete boolean, draftKey) and error conditions (UNVERIFIED_EMPTY). It also ties into the caching mechanism via freshness.asOf, making the tool behavior clear for an agent.

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 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant value by detailing the autoRefresh parameter's behavior (including default from env var and cost implications) and the semantics of the result fields (complete boolean, draftKey).

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 clearly states 'List draft messages from the local OurFamilyWizard cache' and distinguishes from the sibling tool ofw_status(includeDraftInventory:true) for a live one-call alternative. This provides a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description explains when to use autoRefresh to avoid UNVERIFIED_EMPTY refusal, and explicitly mentions ofw_status as a preferred alternative for live queries. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements for other sibling tools, though the context is clear enough.

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