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

The description discloses critical behavior beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation: nobody is pre-assigned, the response carries mission_id, the first accept_mission caller claims it, the signal expires in 3 hours, and there is a 1-hour cooldown. This fully characterizes the operation's side effects and lifecycle. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact parenthetical containing only high-value operational details. Every clause adds a constraint, mechanism, or consequence; there is 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?

For a state-changing broadcast tool with no output schema, the description provides the required response cue (mission_id), the claim flow via accept_mission, usage restrictions, active-signal limit, expiry, and cooldown. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool and interpret the outcome without guessing.

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 100% and both parameters are already documented with clear descriptions, including the distress_type enum values. The description repeats the type list but adds no significant parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is 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 action ('Broadcast a distress signal'), its purpose ('emergency rescue'), and the concrete outcome (posts a rescue mission). The three distress types are enumerated, making the tool's function unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like accept_mission or combat.

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?

The description gives strong usage context: it is for fuel, repair, or combat emergencies; cannot be used while docked; there is a one-active-signal limit and a cooldown. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the conditions and type definitions make appropriate usage clear.

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