list_report_intents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the listing is restricted to *unsubmitted* drafts owned by the authenticated user, and it explicitly rules out submission. Pagination and ordering behavior are still unstated.

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 resource and scope, with no waste. The second sentence is slightly redundant against readOnlyHint/non-destructive annotations, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers the crucial scoping (auth user, unsubmitted state). Given the sibling list contains many list_* tools, a bit more differentiation (e.g., versus list_report_intent_attachments) would fully close the gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no argument semantics to document and the description correctly spends no space on them.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("List ... report-intent drafts") with two scoping qualifiers that separate it from siblings: "unsubmitted" and "owned by the authenticated hacker". An agent can distinguish it from get_report_intent (single item) and list_my_reports (submitted reports) without opening any schema.

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 scope qualifiers imply when this tool applies, but no alternative is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not condition is stated. "This does not submit them" is a side-effect clarification rather than routing guidance, so usage remains implied.

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