find_nearest_trade_hub

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation with potentially large data. The description adds context about 'detailed route information', which suggests richer output than just a hub name. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'detailed' entails (e.g., jump-by-jump breakdowns, distances). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Find the nearest trade hub') and adds key context ('provide detailed route information'). There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks output details (e.g., what 'detailed route information' includes) and usage context relative to siblings. For a routing tool without an output schema, more completeness on return values would be beneficial.

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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., origin as 'solar system name or ID', maxJumps range 1-20). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying trade hub types or route details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find the nearest trade hub to a specified solar system and provide detailed route information.' This specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('trade hub'), and scope ('nearest to a solar system'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_nearest_landmarks' or 'calculate_route', which reduces clarity in a crowded toolset.

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. With many sibling tools for routing, navigation, and location queries (e.g., 'calculate_route', 'find_nearest_landmarks', 'find_stations_with_services'), the agent receives no help in selecting this specific tool for trade hub routing over other options.

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