List saved fittings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a mild efficiency hint ('in the same call') that avoids N+1 EFT fetches, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or what happens with a large fitting library.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return shape. No filler, though the EFT sentence could be slightly tighter since the schema already states the default.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (ship names, module counts, optional EFT text) and that no parameters are required. Only pagination/volume behavior is left unaddressed.

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 parameters are fully documented structurally. The description reinforces the filter behavior (name or ship) and the EFT toggle's batching benefit, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — 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?

Clear verb+resource ('Lists a character's saved in-game fittings') with a concrete description of returned content (ship names and module counts). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling fitting_get, but the list-vs-single framing is implicit.

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 usage hints for its parameters ('Filter by fit name or ship', toggle include_eft), but never states when to prefer this over fitting_get or fitting_analyze, nor any prerequisites such as needing an active character.

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