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 useful behavioral context beyond that: default row statuses, the 'THIS operator' scoping, and the memory/self-improvement intent, which helps an agent decide whether this tool fits the situation.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core scope and default behavior, then adds the usage scenario in the second sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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 fully documented parameters and strong annotations, the description covers scope, defaults, and use case well. The lack of an output schema is not a critical gap here, though a mention of the returned shape or row ordering would make it fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about default statuses but does not meaningfully elaborate on limit, companyId, or include_dropped beyond what the input schema already documents.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('List THIS operator's CoS lessons') and clearly distinguishes scope from other listing tools by stating 'Not cross-user.' It also names the default statuses (open + settled_keep), so an agent immediately understands what will be returned.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use context: 'Use when reviewing what CoS has learned for this user only before a long call or hygiene pass.' It also states an exclusion ('Not cross-user'), but does not name an alternative tool for cross-user or event-level needs, so it stops short of full alternatives guidance.

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