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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value annotations cannot: it discloses the fields returned (burden flags, TCO estimate band, Quality Boat Day notes, canonical URL), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of stating absence/error behavior.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, then a tight colon-delimited list of return contents. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and the most decision-relevant information (single model, by id) comes first.

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 read-only single-record getter with a fully documented one-parameter schema, the description covers what an agent needs: identity of the resource, the input, and the shape of the return. The enumeration of returned fields compensates for the missing output schema; only failure/absence handling 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% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as coming from search_boat_models. The description only restates that a single id is required, adding no format, validity, or provenance detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one boat model by id') and enumerates the payload (specs, burden flags, TCO estimate band, Quality Boat Day notes, canonical URL). The singular 'one ... by id' framing implicitly separates it from search_boat_models, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

The 'by id' phrasing implies a follow-up lookup after a search, and the schema notes the id comes from search_boat_models. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no signal about what to do if the id is unknown or the model is absent.

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