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

With only readOnlyHint=false from annotations, the description carries real weight: it discloses costs (25 credits/crew, 50/marine, rising to cover supply), medical_supplies consumption (1 per 5 patients), pool semantics (station shared pool vs faction private pool), throughput limits, and the player_not_found error for out-of-POI targets.

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 core action is front-loaded and every clause carries information, but the single dense paragraph packs multiple parenthetical conditions (cost model, pool rules, error cases) into a run-on sentence that is harder to parse than it needs to be.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (ManageTreasury, module/hull limits), economics, resource consumption, and failure behavior. An agent has enough to call it correctly across all provider modes.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description still adds value beyond the schema: it clarifies that omitting counts treats the maximum, that reserve=true is coupled with provider=faction, and that target must be at your POI to avoid player_not_found.

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 verb+resource: 'Treat injured crew and marines at a station or with an onboard medical module.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from adjacent siblings like repair/refuel (ship-focused) and transfer_personnel (movement, not healing).

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 explains the conditions for each mode: station vs field vs faction provider, reserve=true requiring ManageTreasury, and how to check prices via facility action=list. It stops short of an explicit 'when not to use this / use X instead' routing statement, but the conditional guidance is strong.

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