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

Beyond the readOnlyHint:false annotation, the description discloses that payment is immediate, there is no listing fee, the ship class must match exactly, and restrictions on active/listed/passenger/carrier-bay ships. This adds significant behavioral context and does not contradict any 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?

The description is repetitive (e.g., 'stored ship' appears twice) and awkwardly structured with nested parentheses, making it harder to parse. It could be tightened into cleaner sentences without losing information.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral conditions, payment implications, and restrictions. It does not explain failure cases (e.g., what if no matching order) or return value, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds extra meaning by explaining the matching requirement between ship_id and order_id, and clarifying that the order is a buy order from browse_ships, which is valuable beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool sells a stored ship directly into a buy order at the base, with an explicit verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_ship_for_sale' and 'sell' by specifying the immediate sale to an existing buy order without a listing fee.

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 clear context: it is used when a stored ship matches a buy order, and it explicitly states exclusions (cannot sell active, listed, or occupied ships). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for listing or open-market selling, leaving the comparison to the agent's inference.

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