station_services

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: results may be multiple when `system_name` is omitted, the System Colonisation contact is specially flagged, and stock snapshots rotate so data can be stale. Missing only operational traits such as rate limits or failure modes for unknown stations.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the disambiguation rule before the staleness caveat. The first line is slightly telegraphic ('Services/pads/market'), but every sentence adds usable information with no padding.

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-shape explanation is rightly omitted, and for a two-parameter read tool the disambiguation rule plus staleness warning cover what an agent needs to call it correctly. A note on unmatched-name behavior would make it fully 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains `system_name`'s purpose (disambiguating duplicate names), that the full name is expected, and the observable effect of omitting it. `station_name` is only implicitly defined as the required subject, leaving a small gap.

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?

Opens with a specific verb-less but precise scope: 'Services/pads/market for a named station (live Spansh)' names the resource and the data facets returned, which separates it from siblings like get_station_market, get_station_outfitting and get_station_shipyard. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is by implication from the facets listed rather than direct routing.

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?

Gives one concrete usage rule — pass `system_name` to disambiguate duplicate station names, otherwise all matches come back — plus a caution ('verify in-game before flying'). It does not say when to prefer this over get_station_market or spansh_search_stations, so the agent must infer the boundary from the facet list.

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