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

Annotations supply only readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: treasury-funded cost scaling per tier (T1=1M through T5=50M), a 10% per-build royalty routed to the empire treasury or split among pirate managers, and the fact that the license waives the hull's empire reputation requirement but not piloting level. These are non-obvious economic and permission consequences an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the remainder is a single dense block of nested parentheticals covering cost tiers, royalty splits, downstream commissioning, ally shipyard access, resale rights, and reputation waiver. Several of these (ally_shipyard_access, resale) are tangential to the act of buying a license and dilute scannability for an agent.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the definition covers prerequisites, cost, recurring obligations, exclusions, and the resulting build workflow. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide whether to call it, or to explain the consequences to a user, 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 both parameters are already documented, including the 'from catalog type=ships' example for ship_class. The description reinforces the concept of 'a specific ship design' but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 precise verb+resource: 'License a specific ship design so your faction can build it at its own stations.' It immediately separates this from adjacent tools by explaining that the license precedes a faction-funded commission_ship build, so an agent can distinguish it from commission_ship, browse_ships, or catalog without opening the 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?

It states explicit exclusions ('not starter, prestige, or pirate boss flagships'), a prerequisite ('Requires the ManageTreasury permission'), the affordability constraint, and the follow-on path ('commission_ship with fund_from_faction=true'). It also notes the pirate-hull case requires no stronghold, which is exactly the kind of when/when-not guidance that selects correct invocation.

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