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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses unlock prerequisites, location constraints, and yield factors (skill, salvage-enhancer modules, active buffs), and implies the wreck is consumed to produce salvage materials. This goes well beyond the annotation.

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 core action is front-loaded, followed by requirements and yield details. The description is dense and uses nested parentheticals, making it slightly heavy to parse, but every clause conveys necessary information 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains where the action can happen, how to unlock it, exceptions to the requirement, and what the expected outputs are. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly.

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 session_id is already fully described in the input schema, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is required; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: 'Scrap a towed wreck for salvage materials.' The 'towed wreck' qualifier clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like loot_wreck, sell_wreck, and scrap_ship, so an agent can identify the right operation without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit conditions for use: must be docked at a salvage yard, must complete one of two listed unlock missions, faction-member exceptions, and a minimum salvaging level. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use them, so it misses full routing guidance.

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