Planetary industry colonies

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

Annotations cover read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds a valuable freshness caveat: ESI only updates PI data when the colony is viewed in game. It also notes that extractor expiry times are ordered soonest first, which helps interpretation. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but annotations already establish the safety profile.

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?

Two tightly written sentences front-load the returned data and then add the important freshness caveat. There is no redundant or filler text.

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, the description effectively serves as a return-value summary by enumerating colony names, types, extractor products, expiry ordering, schematics, and storage. Combined with the fully documented input schema and annotations, it gives an agent enough information to call the tool correctly.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description only implies the `character` parameter and storage contents without adding format details or defaults beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly identifies the resource as a character's PI colonies and enumerates the returned contents (planet names/types, extractors, expiry times, schematics, storage). It is specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the broader sibling `industry` tool.

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 does not state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as `industry` or `assets`, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. The ESI update caveat is useful context, but it is not usage routing.

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