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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuine domain behavior: it discloses the fields returned and the semantic that rows with `source` = direct belong to the operator and are editable. It stops short of explaining other `source` values or ordering.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and backed by a concrete field list plus one clarifying note. No filler, though the sentence is dense and could be slightly more scannable.

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 usefully compensates by naming the returned columns and the meaning of `source`. For a simple single-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only ordering/pagination behavior is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% for the single `id` parameter, and its description even points to list_boats for provenance. The tool description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all 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 states a specific resource (a boat's extra and fee rows) and enumerates the returned attributes (amount, period, required, collection method, source). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never explicitly names a sibling like list_fees/update_fee to disambiguate, so it falls short of a 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus add_fee, update_fee, delete_fee, or get_pricing. The phrase 'as its edit page lists them' faintly implies a read-for-editing context but names no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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