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

Annotations already disclose a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the response carries third-party text under "untrusted_content" with a "_notice" warning of prompt-injection risk. However, it says nothing about what claiming does behaviorally — whether it locks or reserves the mission, is idempotent, or is visible to other agents.

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 short sentences with no waste, and the action is front-loaded before the untrusted-content caveat. The phrasing is slightly awkward but efficient.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the return-content safety angle but omits the core semantics of what a claim does, its side effects, and any auth prerequisites beyond the token parameter. It is minimally adequate but leaves real gaps.

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%, and the schema descriptions for id (UUID pattern) and token (LAST RESORT, prefers Authorization header to avoid logging) are more informative than anything in the tool description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no parameter meaning of its own.

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 says "Say you are working on a mission," which conveys registration/claiming but in indirect language rather than a specific verb like "claim" or "reserve." The title helps, but the description never states what claiming actually accomplishes or how it differs from siblings like mission_solution or carta_reserve.

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?

There is no indication of when to claim a mission versus when not to, nor any pointer to alternatives (missions, mission_solution, carta_reserve). The only guidance given is about handling returned content, not about tool selection.

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