Get saved fitting(s) in full

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the tool performs a skill check against a character (with missing skills and training time) and emits EFT/DNA exports, which tells the agent this call has character-dependent, import-ready side effects worth understanding before invoking.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose before the return-content list, so the reader can stop early. The content enumeration is long but each item is a distinct output category, so little is wasted; the only cost is that the sentence becomes a run-on dump.

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, so the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return payload in detail — modules, charges, CPU/PG usage, skill check, EFT, DNA. Missing only edge behavior such as unresolvable fitting names or what happens when skill check data is unavailable for the given character.

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% — all four parameters, including the enum for attributes and the default for check_skills, are documented in the schema. The description echoes 'by id, name or ship' but adds no syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail beyond what the schema already states (including substring matching and max 10 items).

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 resource (saved fittings) and scope ('Full detail'), and enumerates exactly which sub-objects are returned. It implicitly contrasts with fittings_list via 'full detail', but never names the sibling or explicitly delineates this from fitting_analyze/ship_fitting, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

The 'by id, name or ship' clause tells the agent what inputs are accepted, which is genuine usage guidance. However there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to fittings_list as the way to discover ids or to fitting_analyze for other purposes — usage is only implied.

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