find_colonisation_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses a multi-step pipeline (anchor resolution, EDSM sphere search, batch detail lookup, filtering, deduplication) plus the exact filter criteria (zero-pop, uncontrolled, stationless). It does not mention read-only safety, rate limits, or authentication, but the search nature implies a safe read operation.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose before the centre formats and workflow. The arrow-chain workflow is terse but each line contributes distinct information, with no obvious filler.

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 no annotations, three parameters, and an output schema already present, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose, centre formats, and internal workflow, but omits semantics for two parameters and any behavioral notes on rate limits or result volume, leaving gaps an agent could need before invoking it.

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 0% and the description only explains one of three parameters: centre's accepted formats ('teapot', EDSM system name, 'x,y,z'). It says nothing about radius_ly units/meaning or max_candidates behavior, leaving two parameters undocumented beyond their names and defaults.

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 outcome: zero-pop, claimable systems near a centre, which distinguishes it from generic system or station search siblings. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or contrast itself against edsm_sphere_systems or spansh_find_nearby_stations, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 workflow bullet implies how the tool operates and the centre formats are given, so usage is inferable. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternative sibling tools for nearby-system or station searches.

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