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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses idempotency ('Retries return the same receipt'), eligibility rechecking, no harvest payout, recovery choices, and constraints around departures, allowances, attachments, and private works.

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 description is dense but front-loaded and wastes no words. Each sentence or fragment adds operational meaning: prerequisites, idempotency, cost, recovery behavior, and exclusions.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this is strong: it covers prerequisites, side effects, retry semantics, cost, recovery, and restrictions. The main remaining gap is that expeditionId is only implied and the 'play + expeditions' requirement is not further explained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains requestId as a UUID and links it to exactly-once/idempotent retry behavior, and it explains the recovery enum values and consequences, but it does not explicitly describe the expeditionId parameter beyond the resource context.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Collect a ready expedition exactly once.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like expedition_send and expedition_status by focusing on collection of an already-ready expedition.

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 gives clear usage context: the expedition must be ready, and it requires play + expeditions. It also explains retry behavior and what to do if Library is unavailable, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools to use instead.

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