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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'docked' context, implying the tool is only meaningful when docked at a base, which is a useful behavioral trait beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose what 'details' include or any side effects.

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 single, direct sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key information and earns its place without any redundancy.

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?

For a simple getter tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite sufficient. It specifies the resource (docked base) and the action, and the annotations cover safety. While it could elaborate on what 'details' are returned, that is not necessary given the tool's simplicity.

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%, with a clear description for the single required parameter session_id. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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 'Get docked base details' clearly identifies the action (get) and the resource (docked base details). It conveys the purpose without ambiguity, though it does not explicitly distinguish among sibling getter tools such as get_base_cost or get_ship, which are clearly different resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, such as being docked, nor does it mention related tools like get_ship or get_base_cost. The usage context is only implied by the resource name.

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