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

With readOnlyHint=false, the description adds critical behavioral context: prerequisites, yield calculation factors (skill, modules, buffs), and post-action effects (remaining cargo/modules deposited to storage). It goes beyond the annotation by explaining requirements and consequences.

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, information-dense paragraph that front-loads the primary action and then logically adds conditions and yields. While lengthy, every sentence adds necessary context; slightly more structure could improve scannability.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: prerequisites (missions/levels/location), yield factors, and post-action disposition of items. The agent has enough to call it correctly without needing more.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and only one parameter (session_id) that is fully documented, the description adds no additional parameter meaning but doesn't need to. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (scrap a towed wreck) and the resource (salvage materials). It also lists specific yield types (salvage metal, components, rare salvage) and prerequisites, making it distinct from related sibling tools like 'loot_wreck' and 'sell_wreck'.

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 required conditions: must be docked at a salvage yard, requires specific missions or faction station alternatives with level requirements. This helps the agent decide when the tool is applicable and contrasts with alternatives.

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