find_stored_ship

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: matching is case-insensitive across name or ship type, and "Latest StoredShips sighting per ship wins" describes a deduplication/recency rule an agent could not otherwise infer. It stops short of explaining where sightings come from, whether transfer cost/time is relative to the commander's current location, or what happens when no journal data is available.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the matching rule and the dedup caveat. No filler, no repetition of the name, and each sentence adds a distinct fact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still helpfully previews station/system and transfer cost/time. The remaining gap is the unexplained `journal_dir` parameter and the unstated data source, which matter for a tool that evidently reads local journal files.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does so well for `query`: it states the match targets, the case-insensitivity, and the omit-to-list-all default. The second parameter, `journal_dir`, is never mentioned, leaving half of the inputs undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

"Locate a stored ship" pairs a specific verb with a specific resource, and the description immediately states what is returned (station/system plus transfer cost/time). It is clearly distinct from siblings like find_ship (availability/purchase) and get_stored_modules (modules rather than hulls), though it never names those siblings 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?

The "omit query to list all" clause gives one concrete usage pattern, which is genuinely helpful for a search tool. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over find_ship, get_fleet_overview, or get_ship_loadout, and no indication of cost or preconditions for a scan.

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