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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that results are sortable and paginated, but says nothing about default page size (20), the hard cap (50), total-count metadata, or whether filtering is exact-match or substring for harbor.

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 that names the action first and then the optional dimensions; nothing is redundant or padded. Every clause corresponds to a real capability of the tool.

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 search tool with seven parameters and no output schema, the definition is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the return shape (array of boats, totals, pagination envelope) and about pagination mechanics. Since no output schema exists to explain results, the description should have done more than state that pagination exists.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does map onto all seven inputs by naming harbor, type, capacity, price, sorting, and pagination. However it adds no semantics beyond the property names: no default limit of 20, no max of 50, no listing of the sort enum values, and no clarification that the filters combine as AND conditions.

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 ('Search listed boats') and enumerates the filter dimensions, so the agent immediately knows this is a filtered collection query rather than a single-record fetch like get_boat. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with sibling search tools such as search_captains, but the resource noun already disambiguates.

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 only implied: 'search listed boats' suggests use for discovery versus get_boat for a known ID, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is stated. There is no mention of alternatives like check_availability or get_quote when the user actually wants pricing or availability rather than a boat list.

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