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

Beyond the minimal readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses licensing costs (tiered T1-T5), royalty fees (10% of raw material value, with pirate hulls as a sink), permission requirements, and the full downstream workflow (faction-funded building, material sourcing, treasury payments, and disposition of the finished ship). This is thorough behavioral 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 a single dense paragraph packed with necessary details. It is efficient with no fluff, but the parenthetical-heavy structure makes it slightly harder to parse. Breaking it into separate sentences or bullets would improve readability without adding length.

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?

Given the simple schema and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, prerequisites, costs, exclusions, and post-license process. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to decide whether to use the tool or understand the consequences.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that ship_class references a ship design from ship_catalog and providing an example ('solarian_frigate'), which helps the agent understand its format. It does not add much for session_id, but that is already self-explanatory.

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 states 'License a specific ship design so your faction can build it at its own stations,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like buy_listed_ship and commission_ship by explicitly framing the license as a prerequisite for faction-based building, and even references commission_ship as a subsequent step.

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?

Provides clear context: Empire and pirate hulls are exclusive to their territory, and this tool grants a per-design license. It notes exclusions (not starter or prestige hulls), requirements (ManageTreasury permission), and a follow-up action (commission_ship with fund_from_faction=true). It stops short of explicitly contrasting with alternatives in a 'when not to use' sense, but the use case is well defined.

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