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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the description's job is to add contextual behavior, and it does: prices carry source_url and the date read, some are yard-confirmed versus merely posted, and results are advisory rather than binding quotes. That disclaimer and provenance information materially affect how an agent should present results. It stops short of describing pagination or how many yards are typically covered.

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 resource and scope are front-loaded, followed by the advisory caveat and the parameter hint. It is dense with parentheticals and the trailing guide-URL sentence is long, but each part carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess. Minor tightening is possible rather than necessary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still flags that each price record carries source_url and read date. With the advisory caveat, the filter explanation and a pointer to explanatory material, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 75%, and the description adds real meaning beyond it: loa_ft is not just a length filter but the trigger for per-foot arithmetic, and the service types are enumerated in prose (storage, winterize, haul, spring commissioning). The state and yard_id filters are not explained at all, leaving those to the schema.

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 a specific resource and scope: posted storage, winterize, haul and commissioning rates for Seacoast ME–NH yards, plus yard-confirmed storage prices. That is far more precise than the tool name alone. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from neighbors like find_yards, get_yard or estimate_total_cost_of_ownership, which keeps it from 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?

Usage is implied by the resource description: call it when you want winter-job pricing for a yard or region. The only explicit guidance is 'Advisory, not quotes' and 'Pass loa_ft to filter by boat length,' which is parameter instruction rather than when-to-use/when-not-to-use advice. No sibling alternative is named, so an agent must infer that find_yards handles discovery and this tool handles pricing.

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