I don't understand why a new player would need to read that say, an Enforcer with three flak cannons and two vulcans (five fragmentation weapons) is good against fighters? You can spend one minute in the simulator and find out. Or you can read the tooltip info on the flak cannon that says it's good against fighters, do two plus two inside your head and work out that fragmentation = good against fighters!
If anything, there could be a second tooltip overlay - for instance, if you mouseover the icon for frag damage, it could say "Fragmentation damage is good against thinly-armored targets like fighters and missiles, but weak against heavily armored targets." and then maybe the overview of how many % damage frag does to shields, armor and hull, to back up the claims in the explanation that came just before it. These sharply defined stat relationships are pretty much the only thing I would call unintuitive about the game.
To try to explain how "discovering complexity" can be fun, say that you made this Enforcer setup to try to figure out how you could make a ship that excels at killing fighters. Inadvertantly you also discover that it's really good at destroying missiles. Then later when you look at "Point Defense" setups on stock variants, you see that there is no such role for a ship setup in Starsector as "anti fighter", because all point defense weapons have a dual purpose - destroying both fighters and missiles. Then even later you might figure out that a weapon like the Phase Beam is actually better at destroying fighters than some point defense weapons might be, simply due to its accuracy. And that's fun!