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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the 'Max 10 active SOP per organization' capacity limit and the existence of an archived state, both of which affect how an agent interprets results.

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 tight sentences with no waste: the identity/scope leads, the use case follows, and the capacity constraint is appended. Everything is front-loaded and 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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing the fields returned (title, schedule, step count, applicable outposts) and disclosing the 10-SOP cap. An agent has enough to call and interpret this correctly.

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% and the single parameter include_archived is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax or meaning beyond it (it only implies archived SOPs exist), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus resource 'standard operating procedures (SOP)' scoped to the user's Vendooly organization, with the returned fields enumerated (title, schedule, steps, outposts). It is clearly distinguishable from the singular get_sop and the write-side save_sop.

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 clear usage context: 'Use it to answer what do we do every day/week or before running a procedure.' This tells the agent when to reach for it, though it never explicitly names get_sop or save_sop as the alternatives for single-fetch or write cases.

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