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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that docking changes ship status to DOCKED, may charge a station fee in CWM that scales with ship tier and foreign-corp tolls, and fails when no station exists. These are meaningful side effects and cost conditions for a non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent action.

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 description is front-loaded with the action and required prerequisites, then compactly covers auto-selection, failure, status change, fees, and undocking. Every sentence contributes operational information without wasted preamble.

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 the critical behavioral details: prerequisites, optional parameter behavior, failure mode, status change, fees, and related undock behavior. There is no obvious missing information needed to invoke it 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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description still adds useful semantics for station_id by explaining auto-selection when omitted and that IDs come from get_sector; bearer behavior is left to the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Dock at a station in your sector.' It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming the actions that require docking first and by pointing to get_sector for station IDs.

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 explicitly states when docking is needed, how to omit station_id for auto-selection, what failure condition to expect, and how to leave the docked state with undock or implicitly via mine and warp. This is unusually complete routing and prerequisite guidance.

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