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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it renders one interactive widget, should be called once, and replaces prose repetition of widget details. The annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by timing, ID-preservation, and prose guidance. Every sentence is relevant, and there is no wasted wording.

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?

Given the annotations, output schema, and simple one-parameter structure, the description is nearly complete for correct invocation. It covers purpose, timing, widget behavior, and preservation requirements, though it could explicitly mention the required sailingId field.

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?

The description partially compensates for the low schema description coverage by naming exact offer IDs, cabin classes, event selectors, and the one-to-three limit. However, it does not mention the required sailingId field or other schema-level constraints. It adds meaningful preservation guidance but leaves gaps that the schema must cover.

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 states a specific verb and resource: presenting the final shortlist of one to three selected sailings in one interactive widget. It clearly distinguishes this final presentation step from research tools, which do not render widgets. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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 description gives clear timing guidance: call once after research, with one to three selected sailings. It also says research tools do not render widgets, which implicitly routes research calls elsewhere. It does not name specific sibling alternatives or explicitly state when not to call it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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