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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a 24-hour cache, null sulfur/raw_cost for loot-only explosives like MLRS rockets, and a documented coverage gap for doors and deployables.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded and the field walkthrough is dense but purposeful, since there is no output schema to carry the return-value explanation. It is on the long side for a single-parameter tool, but nearly every clause carries information the agent can't get elsewhere.

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?

With no output schema and only one optional enum param, the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it does so thoroughly: top-level `explosives` fields, `targets`/`costs` nesting, `cheapest_staple`, null semantics, and known gaps. An agent has enough to call it and interpret 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 single `grade` param is fully documented in the schema with an enum and example. The description explains what `targets` and `grade` mean in the payload but doesn't add filtering semantics 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: a raid cost table listing explosives and sulfur per building piece, explicitly framed as 'the dataset behind the raid calculator'. That framing plus the field inventory makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_building_piece or get_upkeep_rules.

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 gives clear usage context (the raid calculator's dataset, and that a cheaper mix can be computed from `damage_per_unit` since damage adds up), plus an explicit exclusion: 'Doors and deployables are not covered yet'. It doesn't name an alternative sibling for those uncovered cases, so it stops short of 5.

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