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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses real behavioral traits: fuel is consumed based on ship speed and distance, arrival populates online_players as get_nearby does, and uncharted hidden POIs yield invalid_poi. This adds meaningful context the annotations do not carry.

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 core action is front-loaded, but the entire definition is one long parenthetical run-on sentence with several stacked clauses. It is dense and informative yet not well-structured for scanning.

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 two-parameter movement action with no output schema, it covers prerequisites, fuel cost behavior, arrival side effects, and failure cases. It is nearly complete, missing only explicit alternative routing guidance.

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%, so the schema already documents both session_id and target_poi, including that a station accepts either POI ID or Base ID. The description largely restates this, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: "Travel to a different Point of Interest (POI) within your current system." The scoping phrase "within your current system" implicitly distinguishes it from a cross-system move like jump, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 a clear prerequisite pointer ("Use get_system to see available POIs") and describes the invalid-destination condition for uncharted hidden POIs. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use comparison against alternatives like jump or find_route.

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