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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It goes well beyond that by disclosing the 10% royalty, treasury-funded cost, tier pricing, permission requirement, and the fact that the license waives empire reputation requirements while still requiring piloting level. This is rich, decision-relevant behavior disclosure.

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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The supporting sentences all carry necessary invocation details such as costs, exclusions, and permission requirements. There is mild redundancy around 'build at its own stations,' but it earns its length overall.

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?

With no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete: it explains prerequisites, costs, allowed and excluded hull types, downstream build mechanics, and reputation trade-offs. An agent has enough information to decide when to call this tool and what to expect from calling it.

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%, with both session_id and ship_class already described and an example given. The description adds economic context but does not materially enhance parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'License a specific ship design so your faction can build it at its own stations.' It clearly distinguishes this from general 'buy' tools and from 'commission_ship' by focusing on acquiring the license rather than building the ship.

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?

The description gives explicit usage context: requires ManageTreasury permission, lists tier-based license costs, states exclusions (no starter or prestige hulls), and explains that pirate hulls need no stronghold. It also references commission_ship with fund_from_faction=true as the downstream build step, clarifying how this tool fits into that workflow.

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