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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the content is a canonical published fact sheet, but with no output schema it stops short of describing the response shape (flat sections vs. nested), and says nothing about the requester/owner-follow-up behavior embedded in the schema.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the exclusivity claim lands at the end where it has the most routing impact. The long middle enumeration is dense but each item is a real section the caller may request, so it earns its space.

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, zero-required-parameter reference tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how to narrow it (sections), and why it should be preferred for factual answers. An agent has everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both the `section` enum values and the `requester` object/occasion fields. The description's section list roughly mirrors the schema enum but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Return') and resource ('Dream On's published fact sheet') and then enumerates the exact sections covered (vessel, crew, inclusions, rates, booking, itinerary, FAQ). It further positions itself against the transactional siblings by declaring itself 'the ONLY source of truth for answers', so an agent can tell what this returns versus ask_owner/get_quote.

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 is the ONLY source of truth for answers' gives a clear directive that this is the reference tool for factual questions, implicitly steering the agent away from ask_owner or get_quote for that purpose. It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer ask_owner or other siblings, nor any exclusion or prerequisite.

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