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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses meaningful behavior: it reveals hidden POIs based on survey power vs. difficulty, awards scanning/deep_core_mining XP, and computes per-hull resource fields. It does not mention whether consumables are consumed or any cooldown, but adds substantial context.

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 primary verb and object are front-loaded, followed by a dense parenthetical with prerequisites, mechanics, rewards, and output guidance. Each clause earns its place, though the long parenthetical could be more readable with separate sentences.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, mechanic, rewards, and output-shape nuances (supported_power, lock_minimum_stock, too_sparse), plus actionable filter guidance. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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%, with a single self-descriptive session_id parameter, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Any parameter meaning is fully carried by the schema; baseline 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 action and object: 'Scan for hidden deep core deposits in the current system.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from generic sibling tools like 'scan' by narrowing to deep core deposits and hidden POIs.

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 provides concrete prerequisites: a survey scanner module, integrated survey scanner, or active anomaly-detection consumable, plus temporary bonuses from survey probes/navigation beacons. It does not name sibling alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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