Islands & Sails Charter Concierge

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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real domain behavior: the calendar carries a 48-hour turnaround buffer, and the tool will not book or hold. That buffer detail is exactly the kind of non-obvious trait that changes how an agent interprets results.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the core capability is stated first with the exclusionary caveat second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

No output schema is present, so the description ideally would hint at what the calendar returns (which dates, how the 48-hour buffer appears in the response), and the two required parameters are left entirely unexplained. It is adequate for a simple read tool but incomplete on the return shape and input meanings.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions 'start' or 'nights'. It does not explain the date format, that nights is a count of nights (max 90), or whether the buffer is applied to the whole range. With two required, undocumented parameters, this is a clear gap.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Read Dream On's official unavailable-date calendar.' That is unambiguous, and the second sentence's clarification that it neither books nor holds dates further pins down what the tool is. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools (get_yacht, list_yachts), so it stops 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?

'This does not book or hold dates; refer guests to dreamonsail.com' is explicit negative guidance and routes the user to the correct alternative channel for booking. What's missing is a positive statement of the situation that selects this tool (e.g., 'use before quoting dates to a guest').

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful scope context — published details plus pricing caveats — and an availability disclaimer that prevents misuse. It omits return shape and any auth/staleness details, but the annotations lower the bar.

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 tight sentences, no filler, with the scope and the critical caveat front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple single-record read with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete — scope and the availability caveat are stated. It could briefly note what the returned 'details' contain, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 fully documented with an example, so the schema does the work. The description only restates 'by catalog ID' without adding format or lookup semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb (Read) plus resource (a yacht's published details and pricing caveats), scoped by catalog ID. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the availability sibling by stating it does not confirm availability.

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 line 'This does not confirm availability' is a clear when-not-to-use signal, steering the agent toward check_dream_on_availability. It does not explicitly name that alternative, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: results are limited to 'published' vessels, and pricing/availability come with caveats (consistent with the schema's 'starting weekly rate, not a guest-specific quote'). It stops short of describing pagination or result caps.

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 sentences, no filler, with the search scope front-loaded ahead of the caveat about returned data. Every clause earns its place.

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 correctly flags that returned pricing and availability carry caveats, which is the main thing an agent needs to avoid misreading results. It is slightly incomplete on result volume/pagination and on how the optional filters combine.

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 description coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents guests, bestFor, maxRate and activity in detail. The description restates those filter axes ('starting budget, capacity, activity or travel style') without adding syntax, units or defaults, and minCabins is documented in neither place.

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 ('Search') and resource ('published crewed-yacht catalog') plus the filter dimensions it accepts (budget, capacity, activity, travel style). It implies a broad catalog search distinct from the single-yacht siblings, but never names get_yacht or check_dream_on_availability, so the differentiation must be inferred.

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 'Search the published crewed-yacht catalog' — an agent can infer this is the entry point before drilling into a specific yacht. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_yacht or check_dream_on_availability, and no statement of prerequisites or result limits.

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