list_drafts

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, the description discloses two behaviors an agent could not otherwise know: results are ordered newest first, and the payload is wrapped in an UNTRUSTED block because it originates from third parties and must be treated as data, not instructions. That prompt-injection warning is exactly the kind of safety context annotations cannot convey.

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 sentences, both front-loaded and doing distinct work: the first identifies the resource, ordering, and returned ID; the second delivers the trust boundary. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, the key returned field, and the trust caveat. The only modest gap is that it does not indicate what else a draft record contains or that results are capped by `max` at the description level.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema (including the 1-100/default-20 range and the pointer to list_accounts). The description adds only the ordering guarantee, which is output semantics rather than parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Lists the drafts of an account') plus ordering ('newest first') and the purpose of the returned IDs ('so they can be edited'), which implicitly points toward update_draft. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference rather than direct contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'so they can be edited' clause suggests this is a lookup step before editing, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus search_emails or the other list_* siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the account reference.

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