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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description reveals concrete side effects and constraints: per-unit costs, separate station-wide pools shared by all visitors, partial fulfillment based on ship capacity/credits/pool stock, and the response reporting remaining stock. This materially helps an agent anticipate non-obvious behavior such as a request not being fully honored.

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 one compact sentence that leads with the primary purpose and packs prerequisites, costs, pool behavior, partial fulfillment, and response content into a single parenthetical without redundancy. Every clause carries useful information.

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 there is no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, costs, shared pools, and partial fulfillment, and it notes that the response reports remaining stock. It does not describe the exact response payload, such as how many crew/marines were actually recruited, but that is a minor gap given the description's overall depth.

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 schema already documents crew/marines counts and session_id at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context for setting parameter values by explaining costs, shared pools, and partial fulfillment, complementing the schema's at-least-one-positive rule.

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 opens with a specific action ('Recruit fit crew and marines') and locates it at a station personnel service, making the tool's function unambiguous. The costs and shared-pool details further distinguish it from sibling personnel actions like transfer_personnel or treat_personnel.

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 states the prerequisite of docking at the relevant station service for each type and explains the shared-pool constraint, so an agent understands the conditions under which the tool works. It does not explicitly name alternatives for moving or treating existing crew, so it falls short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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