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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces this with 'can be repeated safely.' It also discloses the ship status transition to IDLE. It does not mention failure modes or permission/authentication nuances, but covers the key behavioral traits beyond annotations.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, then useful caveats and workflow constraints. Every sentence adds value and there is no wasted 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?

For a parameterless state-transition tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effect, idempotency, alternatives that make it redundant, and required follow-up actions. An agent has enough context 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the optional bearer parameter fully. The description says 'takes no parameters,' which is slightly imprecise because an optional auth fallback exists, though this is minor and covered by 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Undock from your current station') plus the resulting state change ('set the ship status back to IDLE'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like dock, mine, and warp.

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?

Explicitly says the tool is usually not needed because mine and warp undock automatically, and it names when docking is required again (trade, refuel, repair). This gives clear when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and workflow context.

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