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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description earns credit for disclosing that any member may deposit regardless of docked state and that the action is recorded in the audit log. It does not cover failure modes, treasury caps, or whether deposits can be reversed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the action and destination, with a compact parenthetical carrying eligibility and audit information. No wasted wording.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers who can call it, where it works, and that it is audited. Only failure conditions and credit limits are absent, which is minor here.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the description adds nothing about amount constraints beyond the schema's minimum. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the work.

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 and resource plus the direction of value flow ('from your wallet to the faction treasury'), which implicitly distinguishes it from faction_withdraw_credits. It stops short of naming the reverse-direction sibling explicitly.

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?

Adds eligibility and location context ('any faction member... docked or in space'), but never says when to choose this over faction_withdraw_credits or faction_deposit_items, nor what prerequisites exist (e.g. faction membership check ordering).

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