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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: docking requirement, mission generation/refresh behavior, faction-posting restrictions at player-owned stations, and return fields. 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 a single sentence with the main action front-loaded, followed by necessary contextual caveats in parentheses. It is concise and every clause adds value, though slightly dense.

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 read-only list tool with a simple schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers prerequisites, special station behavior, and return fields. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, even without an output schema.

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% for the single session_id parameter, so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3.

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 tool gets available missions at the current base, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_active_missions by the word 'available' and the base context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: must be docked at a base with mission services. It also explains behavior at player-owned stations/outposts. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient.

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