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

The description discloses significant behavioral traits beyond the minimal readOnlyHint=false: it takes 80 seconds, prevents other actions until resolved, returns a narrative rather than structured data, and can have three distinct outcomes (real intel, nothing, spy spotted). This greatly enriches the annotation-only data.

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 sentence packed with essential information (prerequisites, time cost, blocking, return format, outcomes). While slightly dense, every element earns its place and it efficiently conveys all needed details without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, timing, blocking, return type, and outcome variability, even mentioning example intelligence types. There are no significant gaps.

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 already fully documents the single parameter (session_id) with 100% coverage, so the description need not elaborate. The description adds no parameter-specific context, and the parameter is straightforward, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the specific action (send a spy) and target (station you're docked at), with distinct prerequisites and expected outcome. It unambiguously differentiates this from sibling tools by mentioning using the faction's Espionage HQ, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly enumerates conditions for use: requires faction membership, an active Espionage HQ facility, and being docked at the target station. It also notes the 80-second duration and blocking behavior. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, so it stops short of the highest bar.

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