List drafts

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description's added value is the field-level payload (customer, date set, total, quote flag) and the paging contract via next_cursor. It does not discuss ordering, date-range limits, or whether a search narrows across both drafts and quotes.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler; the definition and scope come first, then contents, then paging. The leading noun-phrase fragment is slightly awkward as an opener but the information density is high.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description names the returned fields and explains how items arrive here, which is what an agent needs to decide to call it. Missing filtering semantics and ordering, but nothing that would cause a wrong invocation.

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%, so limit, cursor and search are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the cursor paging ('Page with next_cursor') and says nothing about the search parameter matching customer name or email, so the baseline 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 resource (draft bookings and quotes) and its scope ('saved in the store, not yet booked'), which separates it from list_bookings in the sibling set. A fragment opener followed by a concrete enumeration of the Drafts page contents makes 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?

It explains provenance ('create_booking leaves a draft here') and clarifies the not-yet-booked state, which implicitly routes booked records to list_bookings. It never names list_bookings as the alternative explicitly, so the exclusion is inferred rather than stated.

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