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

Although annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive, the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: the ordering of boats (charted first, then by open weeks), the exact meaning of vs_similar_pct (median over sellable weeks, compared against up to 10 similar boats, null when no week to compare), the 15% thresholds, the 'up to five' caps, and the unit conventions (weekly EUR totals at max guests).

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 purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, followed by return-structure detail that earns its place because there is no output schema. The downside is that most of it is one dense run-on sentence that is hard to parse, though little is actually 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?

With one fully documented parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden well – covering the three sections, thresholds, caps, null semantics, and units. The only meaningful gap is guidance on when to reach for this over the pricing/earnings tools.

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 parameter and the schema already describes company_id at 100% coverage, including its provenance (list_boats or get_company). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies – the schema does the work.

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 the resource precisely (the company's Opportunities as the dashboard's Analysis page renders them) and enumerates the three sections returned: boats, price_suggestions, source_checks. It is a clear read-only retrieval of a specific dashboard view, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like get_pricing, get_earnings, or compare_boat.

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 only implied by the phrase 'as the dashboard's Analysis page shows them' – an agent can infer this reproduces the Analysis view, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'prefer X instead' guidance against the many pricing/earnings siblings. The 'Empty lists mean nothing to suggest' line clarifies interpretation but is not routing guidance.

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