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

Despite minimal annotations (only readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses extensive behavioral details: reward sources (faction reserved rewards vs empire treasury), treasury shortfall effects, wallet limit impact, restitution debt reduction, error returns (wreck_not_here), and the need for a tow claim. This far exceeds what the annotation provides.

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 a single dense paragraph but front-loads the core action. Every sentence carries useful information, though the block could be better organized with bullet points. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description compensates by explaining return values (credits_earned, credits_promised, credits_shortfall) and error conditions (wreck_not_here). It provides a complete picture of what to expect when calling the tool.

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?

Both parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already defines mission_id and session_id. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints for these parameters, making the baseline score appropriate.

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-resource pair: 'Complete a mission and claim rewards.' It is clearly distinct from accept_mission, abandon_mission, and get_missions, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.

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 preconditions ('Mission objectives must be fulfilled') and explains special cases like community missions ('call repeatedly as you gather materials') and wreck turn-ins ('Use release_tow, then tow the wreck again'). However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over accept_mission or abandon_mission.

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