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

With only readOnlyHint=false, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so well: capacity rules, the arena-only unlimited-fleet conversion and its auto-disband, the player_not_found failure for invisible targets, leader-controlled navigation/combat, and the slowest-ship speed rule. It stops short of stating consequences for members on disband or any cooldowns/permissions beyond leadership.

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?

It is long, but for an 11-action multiplexer that length is justified and front-loaded: the action list comes first, then per-action detail, with the global fleet rules last. Each bullet earns its place; only minor trimming is possible.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover returns; it does so partly (status views fleet state, invite can return player_not_found). Combined with the rich action-level rules and full parameter coverage, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though return shapes for create/status remain implicit.

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 genuine semantics: player_id for invite must target a player visible at your POI or it returns player_not_found, and garage stows the ship in the station's faction garage. These constraints go beyond the schema text.

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 specific verb+resource ('Create and manage player fleets for coordinated movement and combat') and then enumerates the exact action set, so an agent immediately understands this is the fleet lifecycle tool. It is distinguishable from the many faction_* siblings by the explicit 'fleet' framing and the enumerated actions.

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?

Each action is annotated with its governing condition — 'create: anyone may create', 'leave: non-leaders', 'kick/disband: leader only' — which tells the agent when each is legal. It also routes to action='help' for full docs. It never names a sibling or states when NOT to use this tool (e.g., vs faction_invite/faction_kick), which is the only real gap.

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