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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the response is 'bounded', it avoids 'opening every unit page', and rules text lives at each record's textSources. That last point is a real behavioral disclosure about payload location.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary return contract, then the optional-detachment payoff, then the pointer to rules text. The middle enumeration is long but each item is a distinct field, so it earns its space; no filler or repetition.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate every returned field, yet it front-loads the key contents anyway. Combined with 100% parameter coverage and a full safety annotation set, the agent has enough to call this correctly; only the lack of alternative routing leaves a small gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the payoff of the detachment parameter — its rules, enhancements, upgrades, and stratagems come back with name, cost, and timing — which tells the agent why to pass it rather than just what it accepts.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Returns every pickable unit' scoped to a faction, with an enumeration of what each record carries (size costs, composition, attachments, limits, roles, keywords, links). The title adds the roster-planning framing. It never names or contrasts a sibling (search_reference, get_reference_record), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied through the conditional 'Include a detachment to receive its rules, enhancements, upgrades, and stratagems'. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-something-else, and no mention of the search_reference/get_reference_record alternatives an agent would otherwise weigh against this.

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