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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses important behavioral consequences: the yard keeps hull materials and cargo, pays a fraction of market value from manager credits, cannot buy if broke, player-owned yards refuse the sale, and modules aboard are deposited to player storage. This richly explains side effects without contradicting 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 description is dense but every clause carries necessary operational information: prerequisites, payment source, exception cases, module handling, and the better alternative. No filler is present, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter action, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, economic mechanics, edge cases, post-sale module disposition, and comparison with scrap_wreck. Since there is no output schema, this description gives an agent enough context to call the tool correctly and anticipate results.

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% and the only parameter is a standard session_id, which the schema already documents. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the overall action, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Sell a towed wreck to an NPC salvage yard for credits.' It also distinguishes itself from scrap_wreck by explicitly noting scrap_wreck recovers more materials, which helps separate it from a closely named sibling.

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 an NPC station with a salvage yard, NPC yards buy wrecks but player-owned yards do not, and proceeds depend on the station manager's credits. It also names the alternative scrap_wreck and its trade-off, giving clear when-to-use versus 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.