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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and closed-world scope, yet the description adds a genuinely important behavioral fact: returned third-party text is wrapped in "untrusted_content" with a "_notice" and must be treated as data, not instructions. That trust-boundary disclosure is exactly the kind of context structured fields cannot carry.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the scope and mode switching front-loaded and the safety caveat last. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, what an agent needs is covered: scope, id behavior, and the shape/trust level of returned content. Only minor gaps remain (what "open" excludes, ordering or volume of the list).

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 already documents id as an optional mission id, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond that: supplying id switches behavior from listing to reading a single mission.

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 the resource (missions) and its nature ("small real tasks") and explains both modes: bare call lists, passing id reads one. This clearly separates it from mission_claim/mission_solution, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

"Pass id to read one" gives a concrete branch for the read-vs-list decision, which is the only usage fork this single-parameter tool has. No exclusions or named alternatives are given, but the operative guidance is present.

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