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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the response is richer than search results (extra photos, description, highlights, toys) and is implicitly a read-by-id operation, but says nothing about invalid/unknown ids, permissions, or whether a stale id still resolves.

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 with no filler; the scope and payload are stated immediately, and the return contents are enumerated compactly after the colon.

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 one-parameter read tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, enumerating the returned fields makes the definition largely self-sufficient. The only gap is failure behavior for an unknown or malformed id.

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 id format (e_ plus 12 hex characters) is fully documented in the schema. The description only adds provenance ('from a previous search'), which is a small but real supplement rather than new syntax or constraints.

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 ('Full details for one yacht') and enumerates what is returned (photos, description, highlights, toys). The phrase 'from a previous search' implicitly separates it from search_yachts, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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: 'from a previous search' suggests it follows a search, and the schema notes the id comes from search results, but the description never names search_yachts as the way to obtain an id or states when not to use this tool.

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