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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden and it delivers richly: all-or-nothing payment semantics per empire, works mid-jump, faction-sourced credits bypass the wallet entirely, detention release behavior, and availability while detained alongside station exchange tools. No contradiction with the mutation hint.

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?

Unusually long for a tool description, but every clause carries operational value — detention mechanics, permission requirements, parameter omission rules, and alternatives are all actionable. The most decision-critical information (what it clears, where it works) is front-loaded, though the single dense paragraph could benefit from structural breaks.

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 mutating financial tool with conditional behaviors, this is complete: it covers scope of effect, location constraints, detention interaction, all-or-nothing failure mode, both funding sources with their permission requirements, fallback strategies (sell, send_gift), and points to get_status for determining which empire to name. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without external research.

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%, but the description adds meaning well beyond the schema: the critical 'omit when you owe exactly one' rule, how to discover the value via get_status standings[].outstanding_bounty, and the funding-path detail that faction credits 'go straight to the empire and never pass through your wallet.' This materially improves correct invocation over the schema alone.

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+resource: 'Settle your outstanding bounty with an empire.' Goes beyond a simple label by enumerating exactly what gets cleared (every uncleared crime, unpaid income/property tax) and the reputation restoration effect, which distinguishes it from nearby siblings like prepay_tax and faction_prepay_tax that handle advance payments rather than settling outstanding debts.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete conditions: pay before next dock to avoid detention, use while detained to release immediately, omit 'empire' when you owe exactly one and name it when you owe several. Also names alternatives with their selection criteria — use sell at zero credits, use send_gift for faction bailout without ManageTreasury — leaving nothing to inference.

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