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

With annotations only declaring readOnlyHint=false, the description carries real behavioral weight: it discloses the module prerequisite, the wreck_not_found failure mode, the speed penalty while towing, and the one-thing-at-a-time exclusivity including the 'storage' action=deposit tie-in. It does not cover auth or what happens if the tow is interrupted.

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?

Single sentence with the core action front-loaded, then the parenthetical stacks prerequisites and consequences. Dense but each clause earns its place; not padded.

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?

No output schema, so the description must orient the agent, and it covers prerequisites, error case, ongoing penalty, and resource exclusivity. Missing only edge cases such as failure during an active tow or how towing ends.

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%, with both session_id and wreck_id documented and wreck_id pointing to get_wrecks. The description adds the POI constraint context but no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource combination ('Attach a tow line to a wreck for hauling'), which is clear and concrete. It implies the tow-to-salvage workflow but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like release_tow or sell_wreck, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

Preconditions are stated clearly: a tow rig module must be fitted and the wreck must be at your POI. It also frames the downstream purpose (travel to a salvage yard to sell or scrap). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives such as release_tow.

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