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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it groups results by station, provides used/capacity counts and galaxy-wide totals, and clarifies that the roster is global to the faction. This complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 moderately sized but each sentence contributes value: the first states the core action, the second explains grouping and counts, and the third mentions the claim workflow. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose, though slightly wordy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool returns: every ship in the faction's garages, grouped by station, with capacity counts and totals. It also clarifies that it shows the entire shared fleet pool and how to act on it (switch_ship). This is complete for a simple read-only tool.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single session_id parameter. The description does not add anything about the parameter, but the schema already fully documents it, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'View' with a clear resource: 'your faction's full ship-garage roster across all stations.' It distinguishes from siblings like list_ships and switch_ship by emphasizing the all-stations scope and the shared fleet pool context, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to see the full shared fleet across all stations regardless of docking location. It also hints at an alternative/related action by stating that members can claim ships with switch_ship while docked, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list alternative view tools.

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