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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely new context: the hangar is corporation-shared, so results are common across members rather than scoped to the caller, and mutations must go through execute_action. It stops short of describing pagination, empty-hangar behavior, or diff timing between calls.

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 sentences with zero filler; the identification of the resource and its returned fields is front-loaded, with the sibling/mutation routing following. Every clause carries 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, yet the description discloses the returned fields, the sharing scope, and the correct path for state changes — enough for an agent to call it correctly and interpret results. Not needed: safety profile, which annotations already carry.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (bearer) with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that it is only needed when the Authorization header cannot be sent. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns only the baseline.

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+resource ("List items stored in your corporation hangar") and names the returned fields (item code, name, quantity). It explicitly distinguishes the resource from get_inventory and station storage, so an agent can tell the three apart without opening any schema.

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?

Names the alternatives (get_inventory for personal cargo, station storage) and the exact mutation path for related operations: execute_action with CORP_HANGAR_DEPOSIT / CORP_HANGAR_WITHDRAW. That is an explicit use-here / use-elsewhere routing rule rather than implied usage.

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