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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the per-call healing cap, the armor healing rate, the exact cost formula with tier multipliers and reputation/skill discounts, and that it stops when funds run out. This is rich behavioral context for a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation tool.

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?

The central purpose is front-loaded, but the description crams an intricate cost formula with nested parentheses into a single dense sentence. Every detail is relevant, yet the structure could be split for easier parsing.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description mentions that the reply shows calculation details in price_info. It covers prerequisites, caps, and stopping conditions well, though it could clarify behavior when not docked.

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 schema covers its single bearer parameter at 100% coverage, so it does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but with one fully documented optional auth parameter, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Repair hull & armor') plus a clear location precondition ('at a docked station'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling operation execute_action REPAIR by noting the shared per-call cap.

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 states the key precondition (must be docked), the repeat-until-full pattern, and the funds-exhaustion stop condition. It references execute_action REPAIR as an alternative with the same cap, but does not give explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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