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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so safety behavior needs no restating. The description adds one useful trait — results are limited to 'existing curated' itineraries — but says nothing about result volume, the limit default, or what an empty result means.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler — verb, resource and filter list in one pass. Nothing to trim.

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 an 8-parameter search tool with no required params and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits limit/pagination behavior, boat_type, and how place names resolve. The rich location-resolution note exists only in the schema, so the description does not carry the load the schema coverage gap requires.

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 low (38%): limit, max_days, min_days, boat_type and location_id are undocumented in the schema. The description only echoes concepts already documented for q, location and activities ('location, name, duration, activities') and never clarifies the location vs location_id relationship or the days/limit syntax.

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+resource: finding curated sailing itineraries, and enumerates the filter axes (location, name, duration, activities). It does not differentiate from the closest siblings, search_routes and search_boats, leaving 'itinerary vs route' ambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance and no naming of alternatives among the many search_* siblings. Usage is only implied by 'Find', so an agent must infer when this beats search_routes or get_trip_details.

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