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

With only readOnlyHint=false from annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so richly: escrow of the archetype-specific jump resource, a 90-tick preparation window, a 540-tick isolated jump, combat cancels and refunds escrow, docking/undocking/navigation blocked during isolation, docked ships ride aboard, and undocked or inbound ships are returned to the nearest static origin POI.

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?

Purpose and prerequisites are front-loaded, and every clause carries real information about timers, escrow, and side effects. It is dense and nearly a single run-on block, which slightly hurts scanability but wastes little.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain what happens on invocation, and it covers the full lifecycle (preparation, resolution, cancellation, isolation side effects). An agent has everything needed to decide and call 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 there, so the baseline is 3. The description's only added detail about system_id ('adjacent, personally known') largely restates the schema and adds no new format or constraint information.

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 (prepare) plus the exact resource (inter-system jump for a faction mobile base), and the scope is distinguishable from siblings like move_faction_mobile_base, cancel_faction_mobile_base_jump, and decommission_faction_mobile_base without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear preconditions — Requires ManageBases, base must be fully repaired and stationary, destination must be an adjacent system personally known by the commander. It never explicitly names an alternative action or a when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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