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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent, and the description adds substantive behavior: the response shape (fuel_per_jump, estimated_fuel, fuel_available, cargo_used), via_wormhole/entrance_poi hops, and the system_not_found outcome for uncharted hidden POIs. This is real context beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and efficient despite being dense with parenthetical detail. Every clause carries information, though the single sprawling paragraph is harder to scan than a short list would be.

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 compensates by enumerating key return fields, the wormhole-hop semantics, and the failure case. An agent has enough to call it and interpret the result correctly.

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 that target_system accepts a system, POI, or Base ID. The description largely restates that, though it adds the nuance that a station may be referenced by Base ID or station POI ID.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find the shortest route to a destination system, POI, or base') and immediately names the algorithm (BFS) and accepted ID types, letting an agent distinguish it from jump/travel siblings.

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?

Routes the agent to search_systems for obtaining IDs and explains that wormhole hops produced by this tool must be executed with jump({target_system}). It does not explicitly contrast itself against travel or jump for ordinary movement, but the wormhole instruction covers the most likely confusion.

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