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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it defines what the returned aggregates mean and what a false policy_applies implies ('governs nothing and cannot be changed'). It stops short of coverage like rate limits or a true return contract.

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 return content is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the cross-reference and the edge-case note. It is dense but every clause carries information; slightly long for a one-parameter read tool but no filler.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by naming the key output concepts and the policy_applies flag semantics. An agent knows what it will get and how to interpret it, though the exact field shapes remain unstated.

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?

There is a single 'id' parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Company id.'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's reference to 'per boat source' and 'the company' reinforces that id identifies a company, but adds no new syntax or constraint beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states exactly what the tool returns: per boat source the share paid in advance, days before the charter the balance is due, and the largest refund each notice period covers. That is more informative than a bare verb+resource. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements (set_cancellation_policy), so it falls short of 5.

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?

It gives clear context for use ('read beside get_company's cancel_refund_percent and cancel_refund_days') and explains the meaning of a policy_applies=false result. However, it never states when to prefer this over the adjacent set_cancellation_policy or any other tool, so no explicit alternative routing is offered.

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