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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safe, non-mutating nature is already known. The description adds valuable context: it explains special cases like sovereign mint offline behavior, repair material aggregation, and supply instructions. It clarifies that input procurement requires buy_order_available=true, which goes beyond the simple read annotation.

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 a long, dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose. While every sentence adds detail about interpreting output and special cases, it is not concise and could be broken into structured sections. Some instructions (supply NPC repairs, procurement) are tangential to listing base details but are nonetheless useful.

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 must convey the returned data. It covers base services, market prices, repairs with material totals, sovereign mint blockers, and supply instructions. This is comprehensive for the tool's scope, though it omits explicit field names or exact structure, which is minor given the breadth covered.

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?

There is only one parameter (session_id) with a clear schema description ('Your session ID from login/register'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra meaning to this standard parameter, so it remains at the baseline.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get docked base details'. It specifies the condition (docked) and enumerates the content: base services, market prices, repairs, and sovereign mint status. This distinguishes it from other get_* tools by focusing on the docked base state.

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 gives a precondition ('You must be docked') which implies when it is valid, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get_status or station. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest a sibling tool. The usage is implied but not fully differentiated.

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