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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context: hidden equipment items are included, and locked_fields are the fields MMK or Nausys rewrite on every sync — information an agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('one of the operator's boats in full') and then enumerates contents. No filler, though the trailing enumeration is packed.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what is returned (editable fields, photos with ids, videos, equipment including hidden, locked_fields). No permissions or sync-freshness caveats beyond locked_fields, but essentially complete for a single-resource read.

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 100% with a single id parameter documented as coming from list_boats, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing further about the id, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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?

The description names a specific verb+resource (fetch one boat in full) and scopes it precisely: every editable field, photos with ids, videos, equipment with hidden items, and locked_fields. It implicitly separates itself from get_boat_standouts by emphasizing the full edit-page view, but never names the sibling tools it is distinguished from.

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?

Usage is implied by 'as its edit page shows it' and 'every editable field', suggesting this is the tool for full editable state rather than a summary. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives like get_boat_details or get_boat_standouts.

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