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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: the returned fields, the no-corporation notice behavior, and that sovereignty requires corporation membership.

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 compact sentences with no waste. The primary purpose and returned fields come first, followed by safety and alternative-action guidance.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the returned fields, the no-corp edge behavior, the membership prerequisite, and where to go for claiming or releasing. That is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The single bearer parameter is fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, so the schema carries the parameter explanation. The description does not add further parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: it lists sectors over which the caller's corporation holds sovereignty. It also names the returned fields (sector ID, name, security level, claim date), making it easy to distinguish from get_sector and other sector tools.

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?

It clearly indicates the read-only listing use case and redirects mutation to execute_action SOV_CLAIM / SOV_RELEASE. It also notes the corporation-membership prerequisite, though it does not explicitly state exclusions beyond that.

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