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

The 'Read-only' claim merely repeats readOnlyHint=true rather than contradicting it, so no annotation conflict. The description does add real context beyond the annotations: results are implicitly scoped to the agent's current sector (no sector argument), the shape of each returned record is named, and the hand-off to jump_hyperlane is described. It stops short of noting whether the list is exhaustive or paginated.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler: what it lists and returns first, safety note second, alternatives third. Front-loaded and scannable.

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 zero-required-param, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, returned fields and alternatives. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the result set can be empty or large.

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 sole parameter (bearer) is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's silence on bearer is acceptable, and the implicit statement that the sector comes from the session rather than a parameter is a small extra clarification rather than parameter documentation.

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 and resource (list hyperlane links) plus the explicit scope 'that start in your current sector', and previews the returned fields (lane_id, destination sector, fuel cost). An agent can distinguish this from warp and get_route without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: pass a lane_id to jump_hyperlane to actually travel, use warp for ordinary neighbours, and get_route for a distant path. When-to-use and which alternative applies in which case are both stated.

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