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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety bar is covered. The description still adds genuinely new context: no credit cost, API key required, nothing is started, and results are ordered newest-first with paging. It stops short of describing output shape in depth, but that is largely redundant for a simple 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, then constraints in a short paragraph. 'Reads only, costs no credits, and starts nothing' is slightly belt-and-suspenders against the annotations, but it is compact and the sentences otherwise each carry distinct information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by noting return ordering (newest first) and paging, plus auth and cost. For a read-only two-parameter list tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly; only the exact response field shape is 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%, with both limit and offset documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description only gestures at 'paging' without adding format or default details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource ('List past and running autopilot runs') plus the payload dimension ('status and result summaries'). It is clearly distinguishable from the siblings start_autopilot and get_autopilot_status, both of which are named or implied.

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 says what to use it for (reviewing prior runs, checking for an in-flight run) and gives a concrete when-not plus alternative: 'For detail on one run, use get_autopilot_status.' It even names the downstream risk it guards against — a duplicate start_autopilot launch.

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