Gangwaze Cruise Tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the valuable behavioral detail of what data the comparison surfaces, which is the main thing an agent needs to judge usefulness.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and scope, then a dense but purposeful enumeration of compared attributes. The second sentence on id provenance is short and earns its place; the field list is long but each item is information the agent needs.

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 takes on the burden of describing return content, and it does so thoroughly. The only gap is the cabin parameter's effect on pricing and the 2–3 id limit, which remain schema-only.

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 50% and both parameters already carry inline descriptions in the schema. The description only reinforces that ids come from searchCruises and says nothing about the cabin filter or the 2–3 id cardinality constraint, so it adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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 (compare) plus the exact resource (2–3 specific sailings) and enumerates the compared dimensions: dates, ports, price, price per night, verdict vs six-month average, ship age/size, family suitability, rating, CDC score. It is clearly distinct from the sibling searchCruises, which it identifies as the source of ids.

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?

"Takes sailing ids from searchCruises" establishes the prerequisite workflow step and implies this is the follow-up to a search. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative comparison tool, but the context is clear and no competing sibling exists.

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, non-destructive, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: it warns that a place with very different sub-regions returns a list instead of a single answer, which changes how an agent must handle the response. It does not mention rate limits or data freshness, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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. The core output content is front-loaded and the edge-case caveat follows it, so an agent gets the essential meaning first.

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 one parameter, full schema coverage, and a complete annotation set, the description covers what the tool returns and the one non-obvious response shape. It lacks any note on result limits or data recency, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already defines 'place' with an example, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes further by classifying what counts as a place ('port, region or destination') and by explaining that ambiguous place names resolve to a list of candidates, which adds interpretive meaning for the one required parameter.

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 exactly what the tool returns: month-by-month average temperature and rainfall for a cruise port, region, or destination, plus warmest/driest months. That is specific enough for an agent to separate it from data-oriented siblings like getPortGuide or searchCruises. It stops short of naming any sibling, so it does not earn 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for climate/seasonality questions, but there is no explicit 'use this when... instead of...' routing against getPortGuide or searchCruises. The note about sub-region lists is edge-case behavior, not guidance on when to choose this tool.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by enumerating the returned attributes and by warning that '"No issues recorded" is not a guarantee of none' — an interpretive caveat an agent scoping a recommendation genuinely needs.

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, zero filler. The scope statement leads, the returned fields follow, and the caveat is deliberately placed last rather than buried mid-sentence.

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 carries the burden of describing the response and does so thoroughly, plus a useful caveat. The only gap is behavior when the ship or cabin does not exist (error vs empty result), which an agent might want to know.

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% and both parameters carry examples ('Allure of the Seas', '9318' or 'D126'). The description restates that lookup is by ship and room number but adds no new constraint or format detail, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 ('One specific cabin by ship and room number') and then enumerates exactly what is returned (deck, side/position, category, size, sleeps, connecting cabin, known issues, cruiser reports). The emphasis on 'one specific cabin' implicitly separates it from the list-style sibling getShipCabins.

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 makes the use case clear (look up a single cabin identified by ship and cabin number), so usage is implied, but it never names an alternative or an explicit when-not condition. An agent must infer that getShipCabins is the list-level counterpart rather than being told.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world lookup, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the scope of returned data (ratings with review counts, tier taxonomy, fleet size), but says nothing about name-matching behavior, miss handling, or freshness of ratings.

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 dense sentence with the resource stated first and the return contents listed after the colon. Every clause carries information, though the comma-separated inventory is slightly list-heavy.

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 does the right thing by summarizing what comes back, which is adequate for a simple one-parameter lookup. It still omits what happens when the name does not resolve and whether partial names are accepted, which an agent would need for reliable 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 'line' parameter is documented with examples ("Carnival", "Seabourn"). The description contributes only the phrase 'one cruise line', adding no format, matching, or normalization detail beyond the schema — 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?

States a specific verb implied (fetch) and resource (one cruise line), and enumerates the payload contents: traveler-type descriptions, ratings, tier, fleet size. It is implicitly distinguishable from the sibling getShipProfile because it scopes to the line rather than a ship, but it never names or contrasts with that sibling 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as getShipProfile for vessel-level data. Usage is only inferable from the description of returned content.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. Because there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what the response contains, and it does so concretely (overall style, daytime/evening rules, formal-night frequency, jeans/shorts/swimwear and venue rules).

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the content list. It is a noun fragment rather than a sentence, but every clause maps to actual returned content, so little is wasted.

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, single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the main risk is the agent not knowing what comes back — the enumeration of returned content addresses that. An explicit statement that only a cruise line name is needed to call it would close the remaining gap.

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% for the single 'line' parameter, including an example ("Royal Caribbean"), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names the specific resource (a cruise line's dress code) and enumerates its sub-topics — daytime/evening rules, formal nights, venue rules, theme nights — which clearly separates it from getCruiseLineProfile or getShipProfile. It is a content inventory rather than a verb+resource statement, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus siblings such as getCruiseLineProfile (which likely also carries line-level policy). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no indication that the caller should already know the cruise line.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the shape of the returned data (drink value caps, daily limits, gratuity), which matters because no 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?

One sentence, no filler, with the resource and the returned-content list front-loaded. Every clause earns its place by telling the agent what it gets back.

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 no-required-param read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers both scope and the fields returned, and annotations handle the safety semantics. The only gap is the absence of any routing guidance among the twelve sibling lookup tools.

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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('Cruise line name; omit for all lines'), so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description's 'by cruise line' phrasing is consistent with it but adds nothing beyond the schema; a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific resource (beverage/drink packages) and enumerates the returned fields (package names, max drink value, daily limits, gratuity), which clearly separates it from siblings like getDressCode or getCabinDetail. It lacks an explicit verb, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative sibling is named. Usage is only implied by the 'by cruise line' framing plus the schema's 'omit for all lines' note, which is enough to infer a filtered lookup but not documented 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value by disclosing the result payload shape (price, duration, rating, link) despite there being no output schema, plus the refinement workflow of re-issuing the same query with added price bounds. It does not mention result counts, ranking, or rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then filtering parameters, then the refinement pattern, then the sibling alternative. Each sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 carries the payload description job and does it (price, duration, rating, link), and it covers the port/activity/price workflow plus the sibling alternative. Minor gaps remain: no indication of result volume, ordering, or truncation behavior for a broad port query.

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% with per-parameter descriptions (units, examples, omit-behavior), so the baseline is 3. The description adds interaction semantics the schema cannot express: that narrowing by price requires repeating the same port and activity parameters, clarifying cross-call parameter coupling.

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+resource (bookable shore excursions and resort day passes in a cruise port) and enumerates the returned attributes (price, duration, rating, link). It explicitly draws the boundary against the closest sibling by naming getSailingExcursions for the multi-port case, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions: pass activity to narrow by kind, minPrice/maxPrice to narrow by price, and re-call with the same port+activity to refine an earlier answer by price. It also names the alternative (getSailingExcursions) and the exact condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the guide contains, but it does not disclose return format, response size, or any behavioral constraints beyond what annotations provide.

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 listing the guide's contents. Every item earns its place by telling the agent what information is returned, with no filler.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the returned guide's coverage areas, which compensates for the missing output schema. It could be slightly more complete by noting the return format, but no critical calling information is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the schema describes it fully ('Port name, e.g. "Cozumel"') at 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as naming conventions or common aliases, so the baseline score of 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden.

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 resource ('cruise port') and enumerates the guide's coverage areas, which implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like getPortExcursions by focusing on general port information rather than bookable tours. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 the content list (use it to learn about a port's amenities, safety, and logistics), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of when another sibling tool would be better. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no default limit, no sort order for 'biggest', no refresh/pagination behavior, and no statement of what makes a drop qualify as 'biggest'.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler, which is efficient. However, the bulk of the sentence is a return-field list rather than purpose or usage, so the space is not optimally spent.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields (cabin type, prices, percent dropped, sail date, booking link), which covers the return shape. It still omits sorting, default limit, and any caveats needed to call a ranked-list tool 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?

The single 'limit' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, its bounds (1-10), or its default when omitted. The word 'biggest' hints at sorting but does not connect it to the limit parameter, so the description fails to compensate for the schema 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?

States a specific resource (current cruise price drops) with a clear intent of surfacing the biggest drops. It distinguishes itself implicitly from getPriceHistory by the 'current' framing, but never names a sibling or contrast explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as getPriceHistory or searchCruises. An agent gets a topic but no routing logic for choosing this tool over the price-related siblings.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the analytic outputs (six-month history, average, percent deviation, verdict, price-drop membership), which matters since no 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?

Two tight sentences with the payload front-loaded and zero filler; the prerequisite sentence follows the outcome sentence logically.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the five things the agent gets back. Combined with annotations covering safety and 100% schema coverage on inputs, nothing material 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id and cabin) are already documented, including the cabin enum and the id format example. The description only adds provenance for the id ("from searchCruises") and says nothing about the cabin filter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (judge) and resource (one sailing's current fare), with an enumeration of exactly what the tool returns. It explicitly scopes to a single sailing, which cleanly separates it from sibling getPriceDrops (a list) and compareSailings (multi-sailing comparison).

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 names the source of the required id ("from searchCruises"), which establishes the intended call order and prerequisites. It gives clear context but stops short of naming an explicit alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, e.g. against compareSailings.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real substance by disclosing the selection logic (up to three picks per port that fit the time ashore with an hour to spare before all aboard) and the per-port outputs (hours ashore, totals). It stops short of describing pagination or failure modes.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: what it returns, then the selection guarantee, then how to supply a sailing, then filters, then the sibling alternative. Every clause carries information, though the description packs several ideas into three long sentences.

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 does the work of explaining the return shape (hours ashore, up to three picks, per-port totals) and the cross-port filter behavior. Remaining gaps are minor for a read-only, idempotent lookup tool.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description goes further by clarifying that activity and minPrice/maxPrice narrow EVERY port rather than a single port, which is a cross-parameter behavior the schema does not express. The sailing-id-vs-ship/date relationship is also restated usefully.

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 resource (shore excursions), the scope (every port of one sailing, one call, itinerary order) and explicitly distinguishes itself from getPortExcursions. An agent can identify it 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?

Gives both routing ('Use this instead of calling getPortExcursions once per port') and input alternatives (a sailing id from searchCruises, or ship plus sail date). When-to-use and which sibling to avoid are both explicit.

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 cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but with no output schema the description usefully discloses the returned payload: cabin categories, counts, size range, occupancy, and guarantee categories. It omits pagination/ordering behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 naming the resource and grouping before enumerating fields; no filler or repetition of annotations. The field list is dense but each item is informative.

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, single-parameter lookup with full annotation coverage, the definition gives the agent enough: what is queried and what is returned. Only the missing sibling differentiation and any result ordering limits keep it below complete.

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% and there is a single required 'ship' parameter fully documented with an example in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 (get) and resource (a ship's cabins) plus the grouping dimension and returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling getCabinDetail, which is the closest candidate for confusion, 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent to prefer this over getCabinDetail for per-cabin information, and no prerequisites (e.g., a valid ship identifier source) are given.

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 read-only, idempotent, open-world false, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds scope ('One ship') and enumerates returned fields, but does not add auth, error, or rate-limit context beyond the safety profile already covered.

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 a single compact sentence that enumerates fields without waste. It is not front-loaded with a verb, but remains efficient for a simple lookup 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 simple one-ship read with strong annotations and a fully documented parameter, the field enumeration usefully compensates for the absence of an output schema. Missing usage routing and sibling differentiation keep it from a 5.

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% for the single ship parameter, including an example. The description does not add any parameter syntax or format details, so the baseline score of 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?

It states the resource and scope ('One ship') and enumerates the profile fields returned, distinguishing it from line-wide or sailing tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not name a sibling alternative to reinforce the distinction.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like getCruiseLineProfile or getShipCabins. Usage is only implied by the resource name and field list.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: omitted filters remain unfiltered, results are always soonest first, and the response contains the match count, cheapest fare, top lines, 10 soonest sailings with IDs, and a gangwaze.com link. It does not cover rate limits or auth prerequisites, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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 three tight sentences with no wasted wording. It front-loads the search purpose and filter breadth, then immediately explains filtering semantics and return behavior. Dense but appropriate for a 20-parameter search 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values, and it does: match count, cheapest fare, top lines, 10 soonest sailings, ordering, IDs for follow-up tools, and a full-results link. Combined with the fully documented input schema and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call the tool 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 every parameter in detail. The description mentions broad filter categories and the nights "lo:hi" format, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's per-field documentation. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: "Search upcoming cruise sailings". It enumerates the scope of filters and the return shape, and names compareSailings/getPriceHistory as follow-up tools for the returned IDs. An agent can distinguish this search tool from the sibling detail/profile tools without opening their schemas.

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 usage context: pass the full filter set, omitted fields are unfiltered, and results are always soonest first. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name an alternative search tool, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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