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

With only readOnlyHint=false in the annotations, the description carries the burden and delivers rich context: permission requirement, an operational side effect (prepays 5,000 fuel/AU rounded up), a real-world time cost (three hours per AU), and a non-obvious state guarantee (base remains accessible while moving). None of this is derivable from the schema or 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?

Single front-loaded sentence with purpose first and details parenthesized, which is efficient. The parenthetical is dense but each clause (permission, bounds, time, cost, availability) earns its place.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, this covers permissions, bounds, timing, cost, and accessibility while moving. It omits failure behavior and any confirmation/return expectations, a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 the description's coordinate facts (AU units, 10 AU of system center) largely duplicate the x/y schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The per-AU cost/rounding hints at how coordinate magnitude scales the operation but is more behavioral than parameter-semantic.

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+resource (move faction mobile base) plus a scope qualifier, 'in its current system,' which naturally distinguishes it from jump_faction_mobile_base. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

It gives the precondition 'Requires ManageBases' and hard operating constraints (within 10 AU of system center), which tells the agent when the call is valid. It doesn't state when NOT to use it or route the agent to jump_faction_mobile_base for cross-system moves, leaving that to inference.

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