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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that each mission is returned with its status and id, but since an output schema exists this is largely restated structured data, and it says nothing about ordering, limits, or how 'how they are going' is quantified.

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 sentences, the invocation trigger front-loaded, followed immediately by the return shape and chaining hint. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With zero parameters, full annotation coverage of the safety profile, and an output schema handling return values, there is nothing further an agent needs. Return contents and the get_mission hand-off are stated explicitly.

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?

The input schema is an empty object with zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 (list) and resource, and even disambiguates the domain term: 'missions (long-running multi-agent jobs)'. It routes to get_mission for detail, but doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbours such as list_agents, check_agent_run, or list_automations.

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?

'Use this when the user asks what missions they have in Xenition and how they are going' gives a concrete invocation trigger, and naming get_mission supplies the natural follow-up. No when-not guidance or exclusions are offered, so it stops short of a 5.

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