Identify a scan signature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context — signatures resolve to ship-signature multiples within a cluster size, or to ROC/FPS deposits and salvage panels with a rock/item count. It does not say what happens on an unrecognized value or whether results are a single match or a list, which would matter for a lookup tool.

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?

A single compact passage with no filler, and the most informative clause (exact multiples of a mineral's ship signature) leads. The phrasing is slightly elliptical — the list of possible resolutions is piled into one sentence — but nothing is wasted.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values; it partially does so by enumerating what a signature can correspond to (multiples within cluster size, ROC/FPS deposits, salvage panels, counts). It does not describe the shape of the response, what an unmatched signature yields, or how ambiguity between multiple interpretations is reported. For a one-parameter lookup tool this is workable but not complete.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already supplies the name, type, range (1–30000) and meaning. The description nonetheless adds interpretive value by explaining what kinds of things a given signature value can resolve to, which the schema does not. It stops short of stating units or whether the value must match a known multiple.

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 frames the domain ('what a scanner signature can be') rather than stating the action — it never says 'given a signature value, returns its identification.' Combined with the name identify_signature and the schema's 'Signature value read on the scanner', an agent can infer the purpose, but the description itself doesn't commit to a verb or result. It also does not distinguish this tool from mineral_info or mining_locations, which occupy adjacent mining-data territory.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many mining siblings (mineral_info, list_minerals, mining_locations). The phrase 'what a scanner signature can be' only loosely implies the calling context. The agent must guess that this is the tool to reach for after reading an in-game scanner value.

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