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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's burden is lower. It adds the return contract — the stored row plus `warnings` listing overlapping rows — which is real behavioral information not derivable from the annotations, though permissions and side effects on existing pricing go unmentioned.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the return-value note. Slightly ambiguous phrasing ('the operator prices directly') costs it a point but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a 12-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description usefully explains the return payload, but it omits how this differs from add_price, what happens to overlapping fees besides being warned about, and any prerequisite for the 4 required fields.

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 75% across 12 parameters, so the schema carries most of the load and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema and leaves `category`, `on_request`, and `amount_is_percentage` to the schema alone.

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 (add) and resource (extra/fee) scoped to boats the operator prices directly, which separates it from the more generic add_price. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool, but the scope qualifier makes the intent legible 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?

The phrase 'a boat the operator prices directly' implies a precondition for use, which is useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. add_price vs add_fee). Usage must be largely inferred.

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