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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, readOnly=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses payout of CWM, mission closure, the NO_READY_MISSION error response contents (progress and remaining ticks), and a subtle non-idempotent behavior where a delivery mission may accept a partial delivery and request the remainder on a later call.

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 action and reward, then usage and edge cases. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the third sentence is somewhat run-on with multiple failure behaviors packed together.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers return-relevant behavior (reward payout, error code and its contents), and two optional params are fully documented. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly, including the partial-delivery follow-up pattern.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds selection semantics for mission_id (optional, auto-selects the first READY mission) and clarifies the bearer parameter's role indirectly. The added meaning over the schema is real but limited to one parameter.

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 (complete a mission) plus the side effect (claim CWM reward, closes the mission), which distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like accept_mission, abandon_mission, and list_missions.

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 explains the zero-argument path (omit mission_id to auto-complete the first READY mission) and routes the agent to list_missions or get_status for progress checking. The when-it-fails condition (NO_READY_MISSION) is also stated, leaving little to inference.

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