list_drafts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value beyond them: email content is untrusted, framed by ⟦mail:ID …⟧ markers, and instructions inside must be ignored — a concrete prompt-injection defense. It stops short of describing rate limits or failure behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and returned fields, then pagination, then the safety note, then a compact Args block. Every sentence adds operational information; nothing is redundant.

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?

With three params fully explained, safety profile in annotations, and an output schema covering return values, an agent has everything needed to call and paginate correctly. The untrusted-content framing closes the remaining behavioral 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: pageSize bounded 1–100 with default 20, pageToken tied to the previous call's nextPageToken, and query described as a Gmail filter with a syntax example — more than the schema conveys.

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), enumerates the returned fields (id, recipients, subject, snippet), and scopes one page per call, which separates it from search_threads and the get_* siblings.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to paginate: when nextPageToken is returned, pass it as pageToken, with '' for the first page. It also states the query arg accepts a Gmail query with a concrete example ('subject:quote'), leaving little to infer.

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