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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description adds real value beyond that: the fixed result size of 40 (implying no pagination) and the HUNT/CHASE/FEAST status legend explaining what the returned values mean. It stops short of describing the per-step fields returned.

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 sentence with zero waste, front-loading the resource and count before the status semantics. Every clause (40 steps, caller's status, the three-state legend) carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 no-required-param, no-output-schema read tool this is nearly sufficient: it fixes the result size, defines status semantics, and signals filtering. The remaining gap is the shape of each returned step and whether sector filtering changes the count, both of which would help an agent plan around 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both optional filters and their enums. The description nonetheless adds meaning the schema lacks by mapping HUNT=available, CHASE=started, FEAST=completed, which an agent needs to interpret results and choose a filter value. The sector filter's effect is left unexplained.

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 ("List the 40 Infinite Game mission steps") plus scope ("caller's current status on each"), which is far more informative than a bare "List Missions" title. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_mission for single-step retrieval, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of per-step status and the presence of sector/status filters suggests this is the bulk-listing path versus get_mission for a single step. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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