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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: it defines what a cockpit is, states that it groups outposts with monthly sales targets and a traffic light, and notes the limit of 'Max 10 active per organization.' It does not contradict any annotation.

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 a single well-structured sentence: it front-loads the action, then definition, then constraint. Every part earns its place, and the parenthetical definition efficiently conveys required domain knowledge without padding.

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 no output schema and safety annotations already covering the risk profile, the description is mostly sufficient. However, the one parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and the description does not clarify whether archived cockpits are returned by default, leaving a small but real gap for correct invocation.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the single boolean parameter include_archived, and the description never explains what that parameter does or how archived cockpits are treated. The phrase 'Max 10 active per organization' hints at active versus archived filtering, but it does not clarify the parameter's meaning or default behavior.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource—'List the cockpits of the user's organization'—and defines the domain term 'cockpit' so the agent understands what is being listed. It is not tautological, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling get_cockpit (single cockpit) or other cockpit-related tools like save_cockpit and set_cockpit_target.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_cockpit or get_all_dashboards. It also does not explain when or why to include archived cockpits, leaving the usage context entirely implicit.

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