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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds non-obvious behavior beyond them: results include soft-deleted cruises and version data, which the agent would not otherwise know. It does not mention pagination or volume limits, which is a minor gap for a 'read complete' endpoint.

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 core scoping and the cruiseId omission rule are front-loaded and earn their place, as does the segment-substitution warning. The final sentence about cruise tools being unavailable and asking for clarification is meta-guidance unrelated to invoking this specific tool and dilutes focus. Several clauses could be tightened without losing meaning.

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-value documentation is not required, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. For a 2-parameter read with one required key, the description supplies the key behavioral facts (soft-deleted inclusion, version field, cruiseId omission). Only tripId semantics and result-size expectations are left uncovered.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain cruiseId's absence semantics well ('Omit cruiseId to read the trip version before creation'), but says nothing about tripId beyond it being required, or about what a null cruiseId returns structurally. Half the parameters gain real meaning; the other half relies on the reader inferring from the name and UUID format.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the complete commercial Cruise and linked CruiseDay fields'), plus scope qualifiers (soft-deleted items and version). It explicitly distinguishes itself from Activity/CruiseActivity segment tools, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like cruise_create or segment_get without opening a schema.

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 a concrete conditional: 'Omit cruiseId to read the trip version before creation,' which tells the agent exactly when to leave the optional param out. It also excludes substituting Activity/CruiseActivity for a cruise day while noting shore excursions remain valid there. The line 'For commercial cruise reservations and sea/port days use cruise_* tools' is slightly muddled since this tool is itself a cruise_* tool, leaving the specific sibling choice within that family unstated.

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