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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does so extensively: it explains charting of hidden POIs, already_revealed/faint signature outputs, XP awards, deep-core accessor requirements, and per-hull recomputation of supported_power. This is unusually rich disclosure of side effects and mechanics.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the remainder is a single dense run-on paragraph with deeply nested parentheses that is hard to scan. Most content is justified by the tool's complexity, yet it would benefit from structured formatting.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully: it names the returned fields (deposits, already_revealed, faint signatures, supported_power, lock_minimum_stock, too_sparse) and the wildlife/leviathan census. Nothing an agent needs to interpret results correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (session_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no parameter-level detail, matching the baseline-3 expectation when schema coverage is high.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Read ore across the current system and scan for hidden POIs', and immediately scopes it with the required scanner modules. It is clearly distinct from siblings like scan, mine, and get_poi by describing the survey-power mechanic, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete prerequisites ('Requires a survey scanner module, an integrated survey scanner, or an anomaly detector') and conditions under which deposits/hidden POIs are returned, including the survey-power-0 special case. It also advises on result interpretation ('filter on too_sparse rather than ranking deposits on remaining alone'), but does not state when to prefer this over scan or mine.

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