draft_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose behavior beyond the schema: result ordering (newest first), a returned identifier, and a config prerequisite (MAIL_DRAFTS_ENABLED=true). It does not state pagination/truncation behavior or read-only safety explicitly, but the gaps are modest for a list tool.

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 compact sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the prerequisite appended. No redundant or filler text.

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 an output schema present, the description covers purpose, ordering, and the feature-flag requirement, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. Only minor operational details (pagination, empty-state behavior) are unstated.

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 description coverage is 100% — both limit (1..50, default 20) and account_id (defaults to "default") are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about these parameters, 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (the account's drafts), plus the ordering (newest first) and a returned field (draft_id). It is clearly distinguishable from the write-oriented siblings draft_create/draft_update/draft_delete/draft_send, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

Provides a precondition (MAIL_DRAFTS_ENABLED=true), which is useful gating context, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or when-not/alternative routing (e.g., versus a search or status tool). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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