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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing side effects (auto-started mission, automatic undock with auto_undocked flag in the reply), the cargo gain being returned in the response, and the 10-second action tick that yields RATE_LIMITED. For a non-idempotent mutation this is exactly the context an agent needs.

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 secondary effects first, then preconditions, then the tick constraint. Dense but every clause carries information; the heavy dash chaining costs a little readability.

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 explains what comes back (cargo gain, auto_undocked) and what errors to expect (RATE_LIMITED), which is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret the result.

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?

Only one optional auth parameter, fully documented at 100% schema coverage, and the description usefully clarifies that the tool is parameterless in substance and that the ore is determined by the sector. Little else could be added.

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 with scope ('Mine ore in the current sector right now') and adds a secondary effect ('auto-starts a MINING mission if none is active'). No sibling tool overlaps with mining, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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?

Preconditions are spelled out precisely: ship must be IDLE or DOCKED with a mining module fitted, and a docked ship undocks automatically requiring a re-dock before sell/refuel/repair. It does not name alternatives, but none exist among the siblings, so the practical guidance is complete.

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