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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write, and the description adds real context beyond them: the effect surface (public listing and search), that the change is reversible ('or show it again'), and that the item is matched even under alternate wording. It does not cover permissions or side effects on other listings, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three short clauses front-load the action and effect, then the name-sourcing hint, then the return value. Slightly compressed phrasing ('the same item under another wording follows it') costs a little clarity but no sentence is 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?

For a 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the effect surface, the return ('the new state'), and the prerequisite read (get_boat). Only permission/eligibility requirements are 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 documents id (from list_boats) and name, leaving the `hidden` boolean undescribed at 67% coverage. The description compensates by framing the two directions (hide vs show again), which makes the boolean's polarity inferable, and reinforces that `name` must match get_boat's listing wording.

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 gives a concrete verb pair plus resource and effect scope: hide or re-show an equipment item from the boat's public listing and search. It clearly is not a generic update/delete tool, so it is distinguishable from siblings like update_boat, though no sibling is named to anchor the contrast explicitly.

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 supplies a usable workflow ('Use the item's name as get_boat lists it in `equipment_items`'), telling the agent to read get_boat first and how to format the name. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use or naming an alternative toggle path, so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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