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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses important constraints: 'Never invent events' and 'Do not speak UUIDs aloud — counts + kinds only unless they ask for detail.' This goes beyond a bare list operation, though it doesn't cover auth or rate limits.

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 extremely concise: four short sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds usage and behavioral guidance. Every sentence 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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, use cases, and important output-format constraints. It omits details like pagination or return shape, but the description's behavioral notes ('counts + kinds only') provide useful context. A bit more about expected output structure 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 coverage is 100%, so all 4 parameters (kind, hours, limit, companyId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is adequate given full schema coverage.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource ('THIS operator's recent CoS telemetry') and enumerates exact event types (open/speech/close, host_push, card_decide/confused/buggy). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_cos_lessons and get_cos_preferences by focusing on telemetry events.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use to verify dogfood soak, or before propose_cos_content_atoms.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the primary use cases are clear.

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