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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: no docking is required, and the value shown is gross before taxes and fees rather than the actual sale payout. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering, but the safety and side-effect profile is clear.

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-loads what is returned, then the scope exclusions, then the usage pointer. Three short sentences with no filler; every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description still enumerates the returned fields and clarifies the valuation semantics, and it tells the agent the call is safe and dock-free. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single optional bearer parameter is fully documented there, so the description need not repeat it. No additional parameter meaning is offered, which is acceptable at this schema richness.

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 resource (items in ship cargo hold) with the attributes returned (quantity, estimated gross value) and explicitly carves out what it is not: station storage and corp hangar. An agent can distinguish it from get_corp_hangar without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use before sell or sell_all to see what you carry') and negative guidance ('not station storage, not the corp hangar'), naming the sibling tools it should precede.

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