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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, which is minimal. The description adds significant behavioral context: what the ship arrives with (default module loadout), the three payment modes and their effects, the prohibition on combining material flags, the faction-funded mode, and the push notification on completion. It doesn't describe failure modes or exact fee structure, but it discloses the key behavioral traits an agent needs.

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 dense yet well-organized, front-loading the core action before branching into payment modes and faction context. It packs a lot of necessary nuance into a compact space. Slightly overcrowded with detail, but every sentence earns its place; a 5 would require tighter structure with clearer separation of the three shipyard contexts.

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 tool's complexity (6 params, multiple shipyard types, multiple payment modes) and no output schema, the description covers the important choices, the companion quote tool, and the completion event. It doesn't mention the specific output/return value or potential errors, but the parameter semantics are well-covered and the behavioral context is strong. A small gap remains around what the API returns when the commission is placed.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the semantic contrast between provide_materials and source_missing_materials, states bare_hull's default behavior, and clarifies that fund_from_faction is required at faction stations where other modes are rejected. This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Commission') and resource ('a ship to be built at this shipyard'), and identifies it as placing a build order at the current base's shipyard. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like buy_ship, commission_quote, commission_status, cancel_commission, and supply_commission.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance across contexts: bare_hull=true vs default, empire/NPC shipyard vs faction station, and which parameter combinations are valid (credits default, provide_materials, source_missing_materials; do not combine; fund_from_faction required at faction stations). It also names commission_quote as the companion tool for the same choices. This is explicit routing and exclusionary guidance.

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