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

The only annotation is readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden, and it does: it discloses the 300-copper fee charged on sign-up, that departure happens at the row's scheduled time, and that the player must stay in the building online until then. It does not say what happens if the player leaves or the mission is missed, leaving the consequence side partially opaque.

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?

Packed into a tight, front-loaded sequence: action and cost first, then parameter sourcing, then timing constraints. Every clause carries facts, though the multi-clause sentence-dense style makes it slightly harder to parse than a short bulleted layout would.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies cost, scheduling behavior, the stay-in-building requirement, and parameter provenance. The remaining omission is the undocumented section value 3 and the outcome of a missed departure, which an agent would need to advise correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for mission_id (source tool) and for section values 1 (Штурмовик) and 2 (Снайпер). However the schema permits section up to maximum 3, and the description never explains what 3 means, leaving a real gap in enum semantics.

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: sign up for a military enlistment office mission, with the cost (300 copper) inline. It also anchors the resource to its sibling by saying mission_id comes from game_military, so the agent can distinguish this from game_military and game_military_return without reading schemas.

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 tells the agent where mission_id must come from (game_military) and states the operational prerequisite: remain in the building, online, until the departure time on the row. There is no explicit 'do not use if' clause, but the prerequisite and dependency routing cover the practical usage decision.

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