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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating what the response contains (objective, deliverables, acceptance criteria, pace/approach options, base IVP), which matters since there is no output schema. It says nothing about error behavior for out-of-range steps or completeness guarantees.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the colon-separated field list is dense and scannable rather than padded prose.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields makes the definition largely self-sufficient. The main residual gap is behavior for invalid or nonexistent step numbers, which the description does not address.

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 description coverage is 100% and the sole parameter's range (1-40) is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of "one mission step" is consistent with the parameter but adds no format or semantic detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Full detail for one mission step" states a specific verb-equivalent (retrieve full detail) and resource (one mission step), clearly distinguishing it from a listing tool. It stops short of naming list_missions as the alternative for browsing, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

The phrase "one mission step" implies this is for drilling into a single step rather than listing many, giving implied usage. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of what to do if the step is invalid, and no prerequisites stated.

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