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

Adds behavior the annotations cannot express: a docked ship undocks automatically and the response carries auto_undocked: true, the action consumes fuel, and adjacency failure returns NO_ROUTE. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs before committing to a non-readOnly, non-idempotent mutation.

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 short sentences, action and constraint front-loaded, then alternatives, then cost and failure mode. No filler and no repetition beyond the necessary adjacency restatement.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the one response field that matters (auto_undocked: true) along with the error code. For a single-required-parameter mutation, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already describes sector_id as a 'directly connected neighbour sector (from get_sector)'. The description restates the adjacency constraint rather than adding syntax or sourcing details, so the schema is doing 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Fly to a directly connected neighbour sector (sector_id)'. It immediately distinguishes itself from the two obvious alternatives, get_route (planning) and jump_hyperlane (named long-distance lanes), so an agent can route correctly 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?

Explicit routing guidance: use get_route to plan distant trips and warp hop by hop, and use jump_hyperlane for named long-distance lanes. It also states the failure precondition (non-adjacent sector yields NO_ROUTE), which tells the agent when not to call it.

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